The defendant was denied his federal Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when the court recessed trial proceeding for the day in the middle of the People’s cross-examination and ordered that defendant not confer overnight about the substance of the case with his counsel. Defense counsel did not object to the court’s order; nevertheless, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to consider the merits of this case because of the importance of the rights affected by the court’s order.
A154880
- October 29, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Walter Pyle
- Categories: Criminal, Right to Counsel
A155156
- October 28, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: David Polsky
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike the 5-year prior serious felony enhancement (PC sec. 667, subd. (a)(1)).
A155127
- October 21, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jennifer Sheetz
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal concluded the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an electronic search condition, but the condition must be narrowed on remand.
A155281
- October 21, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Eric Larson
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
A jury found the defendant guilty of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a)), among other offenses. However, the Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence proved that the charged offense occurred on or after the statute’s effective date and therefore reversed the conviction.
A155856
- October 18, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Elizabeth Eng
- Categories: Criminal, Fourth Amendment
The Court of Appeal held that the pat search of appellant was unreasonable because the officer who conducted the pat search did not present specific and articulable facts to support a reasonable suspicion that the minor was armed and dangerous. In so doing, the Court declined to recognize a rule that would essentially validate any pat search of a suspected robber who is lawfully detained following a report of a fresh robbery, regardless of the particular circumstances.
A155552
- October 15, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Leila Moncharsh
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck the electronic search condition, but remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether a narrower condition would comport with In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113.
A156771
- October 15, 2019
- Attorney: Alexis Collentine/Suzanne Davidson
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
Mother and father appealed from the termination of parental rights. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed and remanded for ICWA error. The Court found that notice should have been provided to all Pomo-affiliated tribes and that the ICWA notice had omitted information regarding the maternal grandparents and the maternal great-grandmother.
A156193
- October 8, 2019
- Attorney: Heather Shallenberger
- Categories: Delinquency
The juvenile court’s decision to impose an electronic search condition was not an abuse of discretion. However, the Court of Appeal found that the condition must be narrowed to allow only the search of any medium of communication reasonably likely to reveal whether the minor was associating with prohibited persons or for any other defined purpose justified by the circumstances and consistent with the proportionality principle outlined in In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122.
A156531
- October 4, 2019
- Attorney: Cristina Gabrielidis
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
In an appeal from an order terminating his parental rights, father argued that the Department and juvenile court failed to sufficiently investigate and provide adequate notice as required under the ICWA. As a preliminary matter, the Court stated that father had not waived his right to appeal the order terminating parental rights by submitting to the recommendation as ICWA notice requirements could not be waived by the parent. The Court then found that the Department had not adequately discharged its duty of inquiry which hindered its ability to provide adequate notice to the tribes. The error was not harmless because it was unknown what a proper inquiry might have revealed.
A148945
- September 30, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Barry Karl
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant’s conviction for rape by force (Penal Code § 261, subd. (a)(2)) must be stayed pursuant to section 654. The defendant was also convicted of assault with intent to commit rape during a burglary (PC § 220, subd. (b)), and, while the defendant assaulted the victim during the first degree burglary, the Court determined the assault and rape were the same single act. In order to ensure compliance with section 1326, the Court also conditionally reversed the trial court’s decision not to release the victim’s confidential medical records, which the defense subpoenaed and the trial court reviewed in camera. The original documents were purged and the Court found that a proper record had not been made during the in camera review.