In light of recent amendments to WIC 707 (AB 2361), the Court of Appeal held that the minor was entitled to a new juvenile transfer hearing. At the time of the minor’s initial hearing, the juvenile court applied the former preponderance of the evidence standard (as opposed to the now required clear and convincing evidence standard) and directed its analysis to whether “transfer[ ] is appropriate,” not whether the minor was “amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,” as is required under amended WIC 707. Relying on In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, the Court further found that remand was necessary because applying Watson’s harmless error analysis would be inappropriate, as it would require the Court to speculate as to how the juvenile court might apply the new legal standards.
A166068
- September 29, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Richard Braucher
- Categories: Delinquency
A166534
- September 29, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Christopher Stansell
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by terminating appellant’s probation as unsuccessful based on his failure to report to his probation officer upon reentry to the country after being deported because there is no evidence in the record that appellant reentered the country during his probation period.
A166203
- September 28, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Sangeeta Sinha
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the court’s ruling declining to dismiss appellant’s misdemeanor conviction for sexual battery (PC 243.4(a)), and its ruling limiting appellant’s registration period under PC 290 to his period of parole. The Court remanded for resentencing because the record showed the court’s ruling declining to dismiss the conviction was tied to the mistaken belief that the court could limit the duration of appellant’s PC 290 registration.
A166653
- September 27, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Kaiya Pirolo
- Categories: Delinquency, Dependency
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s WIC 241.1 order subjecting the minor to delinquency jurisdiction under WIC 602. The Court found that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ruling the minor did not meet any WIC 300 criteria because the evidence showed the minor had been sexually abused by “a member of [his] household,” and that his parents should have known he was in danger of sexual abuse. The court remanded the matter for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion to determine whether dependency or delinquency jurisdiction would best serve the minor’s interests and the protection of society.
A166421
- September 27, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Hilda Scheib
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Following the recall of the San Francisco DA, the trial court granted the new DA’s motion to withdraw a PC 1172.1 resentencing request filed under the former DA, even though the new DA did not offer a reason for the motion except to state there was a change in administration. The Court of Appeal vacated the order and remanded, explaining that the trial court ruled on the motion to withdraw without the benefit of guidance from People v. Vaesau (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 132, in which the appellate court held “that a trial court has discretion, but is not required, to terminate a section 1172.1 proceeding when a district attorney identifies a legitimate basis for withdrawing a resentencing recommendation and moves to withdraw such recommendation before the court rules on the merits.”
A166459
- September 26, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Michael Allen
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the prima facie denial of appellant’s PC 1172.6 petition, finding that the trial court erred by (1) engaging in premature factfinding and (2) concluding appellant was ineligible for relief without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing.
A165000 & A165120
- September 26, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court erred by determining the minor’s offense, assault with a deadly weapon with force likely to produce bodily injury, was not a category 5 offense (requiring an 18-month baseline term), but rather a category 4 offense (requiring a baseline term of two years) based on other offenses that were not adjudicated. Additionally, the Court remanded the case to allow the juvenile court to exercise its new discretion under amended WIC 875 in setting the maximum term of confinement.
A165343
- September 25, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Marylou Hillberg
- Categories: Competency, Criminal, Guilty Pleas
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its direction in denying appellant’s request to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The Court found that appellant had “made a sufficient showing” of good cause under PC 1016, as construed by People v. Lutman (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 64, by showing: (1) there had been a complete breakdown in communication between appellant and his various attorneys; and (2) appellant’s attorneys and the trial court also contributed to the overall delay in entering the NGI plea.
A166153
- September 21, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court denial of appellant’s PC 1172.6 resentencing petition, finding that the trial court erroneously denied the “facially sufficient” petition without appointing counsel, setting a briefing schedule, or holding a hearing.
A166802
- September 20, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Eric Multhaup
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the prima facie denial of appellant’s PC 1172.6 petition, finding that the trial court erred by (1) engaging in premature factfinding and (2) concluding appellant was ineligible for sentencing relief based on the jury’s true finding that appellant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense.