In a case in which a former police officer was charged with nine counts of felony grand theft (Penal Code section 487, subd. (a)), the Court of Appeal held that “the prosecutor repeatedly used deceptive or reprehensible methods that, given their cumulative impact, denied defendant his right to a fair trial.” Specifically, the court found that the following acts constituted misconduct: (1) misleading the jury about whether the prosecution offered defendant a plea deal; (2) impugning defendant’s character by referring to him in the jury’s presence as a “dirty cop”; (3) stating before the jury that a “female judge” had found the alleged victim’s story credible at the preliminary hearing; and (4) insinuating that the trial judge or the court had an improper relationship with defendant.
A151336
- August 17, 2020
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Hilda Scheib
- Categories: Criminal, Prosecutorial, Juror, and Judicial Misconduct
A159073
- July 31, 2020
- Attorney: Seth Gorman
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal agreed with father that the juvenile court misconstrued the legal standards applicable to the beneficial parent-child relationship and, therefore, did not exercise its discretion in an informed way.
A156797
- June 25, 2020
- Attorney: Seth Gorman
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating parental rights finding that the juvenile court erred by improperly considering the likelihood that mother and the children would have post-adoption contact when it determine the beneficial parent child relationship was inapplicable.
A157994
- January 24, 2020
- Attorney: Seth Gorman
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded the matter to the juvenile court with the directions to order the Agency to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and the current versions of sections 224.2 and 224.3 with specific direction that the Agency was to make proper and adequate inquiry of mother and known maternal and paternal relatives concerning potential Indian ancestry and to send new ICWA notices to all appropriate tribes.
A157168
- January 14, 2020
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jeremy Price
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
In this case, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $4,100.26 as victim restitution, which was issued without a hearing even though appellant had explicitly requested one to contest the proposed restitution amount. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s failure to hold a restitution hearing violated appellant’s statutory right to a hearing to contest the amount of restitution and his due process right to be present at that hearing.
A154490
- January 13, 2020
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Mark Greenberg
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s attempted robbery conviction is unsupported by substantial evidence and must be reduced to theft from a person because there was no evidence appellant formed an intent to steal before or during her use of force on the victim. Here, the evidence showed that the incident began when appellant tried to use a port-a-potty on a construction site, the victim intervened, an altercation ensued between the two, and appellant stabbed the victim. However, nothing in the evidence suggested, expressly or inferentially, that appellant formed an intent to rob the victim before or while she stabbed her.
A155747
- January 13, 2020
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Lauren Dodge
- Categories: Criminal, Discovery
After appellant filed a request for disclosure of police personnel records under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, the trial court erred in two respects: (1) it failed to obtain sworn testimony from the custodian of records explaining what documents in the personnel files were withheld and why they were deemed nonresponsive; and (2) the court’s order to disclose some information was not communicated to the parties.
A155062
- December 17, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In a case where appellant was convicted of three felonies (making criminal threats; stalking; and threatening a public official), the Court of Appeal found that his sentence for threatening a public official must be stayed under Penal Code section 654. The Court also remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether appellant’s punishment for multiple violations of the restraining order must also be stayed under section 654.
A156607
- December 16, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Richard Fitzer
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law
The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to conduct a mental health diversion eligibility hearing under Penal Code section 1001.36, which became effective after she was convicted of various offenses, but before her probation was revoked and she was sentenced to prison. In reaching this conclusion, the Court found that section 1001.36 applied retroactively.
A157313
- December 13, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Rodney Jones
- Categories: Criminal, General
After pleading guilty to four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code,1 § 261.5, subd. (c)), appellant was sentenced to a split sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)) comprised of two years in county jail and two years on mandatory supervision. Following appellant’s release from county jail, the court found that appellant had agreed as part of the negotiated plea to a lifetime registration requirement under Penal Code section 290. Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal found that the parties agreed that appellant would only have to register during her mandatory supervision (not the lifetime registration requirement the trial court imposed).