[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held that the monthly $100 probation supervision fee must be stricken in light of Assembly Bill 1869, which repealed the statute authorizing this fee (Penal Code section 1203.1b). In reaching this conclusion, the court found that the appealed order revoking probation and executing the suspended sentence in this case was not final for Estrada retroactivity purposes. Finally, the court found that the record revealed significant discrepancies between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of fines and fees and the clerk’s minute orders and abstract of judgment; thus, the Court remanded the matter to the trial court for correction of the minute order and abstract of judgment.
A158238
- July 29, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Leila Moncharsh
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Retroactivity of Changes in Law
A158987
- July 26, 2021
- Division: One
- Attorney: Kelley Fleming
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that appellant had committed grand theft of a cell phone valued in excess of $950 where two witnesses testified that (1) they were certain they had chased the thief because they kept him within their sight the entire time; (2) that they never saw appellant take the phone and never saw the phone in appellant’s possession; and (3) that police and park security arrived less than a minute later and detained appellant. However, there was no testimony that appellant had either passed the phone to an accomplice or discarded it, and the victim’s phone was not found on appellant’s person.
A153709
- July 22, 2021
- Division: One
- Attorney: David Polsky
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
[Published Opinion] In a case where the jury found appellant guilty of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, the Court of Appeal held that the prosecutor misstated the law involving circumstantial evidence in closing argument. Specifically, the court found that “innocence” under CALCRIM No. 224 refers to being not guilty of the charged crime, not to being not guilty of the charged crime and any lesser included offenses, as the prosecutor argued to the jury. The Court of Appeal further held that the trial court incorrectly answered a jury question about the use of post-crash conduct to find gross negligence, and that the cumulative impact of these errors was prejudicial.
A159876
- July 19, 2021
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Heather Shallenberger
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
In a case in which appellant was convicted of second-degree burglary of a car (§ 495) and vandalism of property (§ 594, subd. (a)), the Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding restitution for lost wages since that loss was not a reasonably foreseeable result of appellant’s crime. In particular, the Court found that the victim’s reaction to her car’s window being smashed was an “extraordinary and abnormal occurrence” that was a superseding cause to her loss of wages.
A159931
- July 8, 2021
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Tony Cheng
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Miranda and Voluntariness
[Published Decision] Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court erred in admitting evidence of appellant’s pre-arrest statements to police, which were made in violation of Miranda, and that the erroneous admission of evidence prejudiced appellant. In reaching this decision, the Court found that officers transformed appellant’s home into a “police-dominated atmosphere,” when five officers, all armed with guns, arrived at appellant’s home at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of the incident and proceeded to interrogate appellant as a suspect (and not a witness). The Court emphasized that appellant never consented to police questioning, was a minor, and was led to believe he was not free to leave or end the interrogation.
A159633
- June 28, 2021
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Karriem Baker
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal reduced the term of appellant’s felony probation from three years to two years in compliance with Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code section 1203.1 and became effective January 1, 2021. In reaching this decision, the Court rejected the A.G.’s argument that the matter should be remanded so that the trial court may correct the probationary term after addressing appellant’s progress and compliance.
A161514
- June 22, 2021
- Attorney: Janet Saalfield
- Categories: Dependency, Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal agreed that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and its order sustaining jurisdiction pursuant to WIC section 300, subdivision (b)(1) that the minor had suffered serious physical harm or illness or there existed a substantial risk of such harm or illness. The Court rejected, on due process grounds, the County’s argument that the juvenile court could have found jurisdiction under WIC section 300, subdivision (c). The jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders were reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
A160603
- June 11, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Christopher Muller
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal reduced the term of appellant’s probation from two years to one year in compliance with Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code section 1203.1 and became effective January 1, 2021. In reaching this decision, the Court rejected the A.G.’s argument that the matter should be remanded to the trial court so that it can make “a necessary determination of the status of [appellant’s] probation at the time it was terminated.”
A155659
- June 2, 2021
- Division: Two
- Attorney: William Capriola
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary, Right to Counsel, Sufficiency of the Evidence
In a case in which appellant was convicted of, among other sex offenses, annoying or molesting a child under Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (c)(2), the Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence established an essential element of the crime – that appellant’s conduct was both objectively and subjectively irritating or disturbing. Additionally, the Court found trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to inadmissible and prejudicial testimony on several significant topics. Thus, the court reversed the judgment of conviction as to all counts.
S255839
- May 27, 2021
- Attorney: Leslie Barry
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
[Published Decision 11 Cal.5th 614] The Supreme Court held that a parent is not required to show progress in addressing issues such as drug abuse that led to the dependency in order to establish the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of WIC section 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i). With respect to the standard of review, the Court held that the first two prongs of the exceptions are reviewed for substantial evidence. The third prong, whether termination would be detrimental to the child due to the parent-child relationship, is reviewed under a hybrid standard. The factual findings as to detriment are reviewed for substantial evidence but the ultimate decision, whether the harm of losing the relationship outweighs the benefits of adoption, is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.