The Court of Appeal reversed two vehicle-tampering convictions because the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to add the counts after the close of evidence at trial, as the preliminary hearing included no evidence of those charges (PC 1009).
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District. Unfortunately, we were not able to update our First District victories page during that time. Even though the victories are not on the website, we appreciate all of the hard work done by the panel and continued dedication to our clients.**
A169778
- August 18, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Matthew Watts
- Categories: Criminal, General
A171624
- August 18, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Laura Vavakin
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a secure youth treatment facility commitment (SYTF, WIC 875) because the record was devoid of concrete evidence about the facility’s programming, how it would benefit appellant, or why a less restrictive placement was unsuitable
A169943, A171243
- August 14, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Robin Smith
- Categories: Credits, Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal remanded with directions to vacate the $10,000 restitution fine and to recalculate appellant’s custody credits. AB 1186 required that appellant’s restitution fine be vacated under PC 1465.9(d) because it was over 10 years old. Also, the trial court failed to calculate the days that appellant spent in actual custody up to the time of resentencing.
A168436
- August 8, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: David Beaudreau
- Categories: Competency, Criminal, Habeas, Right to Counsel
The Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded for a competency hearing, holding the trial court should have reinstated competency proceedings after the verdict but before sentencing based on appellant’s statements suggesting decompensation. The court also issued an order to show cause on whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate competency before deciding not to request a competency hearing during trial, and whether appellant was actually competent to stand trial.
A170960
- August 7, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Erin Keefe
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s three-year baseline term in a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF, WIC 875) case and reduced it to two years, holding the term was not supported by substantial evidence. Probation and the prosecutor both supported two years, the appellant had limited involvement in the offense, and appellant showed progress in custody.
A169614
- July 28, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Anne Mania
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court’s denial of appellant’s PC 1172.75 motion for resentencing in light of People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, where the California Supreme Court held that section 1172.75 applies to one-year prior prison term enhancements that were imposed and stayed.
A169269
- July 18, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Dominique Armstrong and Richard Braucher
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the juvenile court prejudicially erred by reviewing appellant’s probation report in violation of In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.780(c). The evidence presented at the jurisdictional hearing connecting appellant to the crime was far from conclusive as the victim’s in-court identification of appellant was unreliable.
A168013
- July 17, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Rex Williams
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing after finding that the excessive blood alcohol allegation was unsupported by the evidence and that the trial court’s imposition of the upper-term sentence violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. There was no evidence of appellant’s blood alcohol level (BAL) when she was driving because the testing occurred 2.5 hours after arrest, and there was no expert testimony to extrapolate an earlier BAL. Also, the trial court erred because appellant had the right to have a jury decide whether to apply enhancements based on prior failures on probation and her probation status when she committed the crime.
A171165
- July 15, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal struck a probation condition authorizing probation to impose “any program of guidance” because it gave the probation officer unfettered discretion to dictate the therapy in which appellant must participate. The Court reasoned that this condition amounted to an impermissible delegation of authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Court remanded to permit the juvenile court to modify the condition.
A170177
- June 30, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Heather Mackay
- Categories: Credits, Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because the trial court erred by imposing an enhancement under PC 667(a) that appellant never admitted in his plea and by failing to update his credits for time served at the time of resentencing. Specifically, the trial court erred by replacing an invalid PC 667.5(b) enhancement that appellant admitted with an enhancement for a prior conviction of a serious felony that he did not admit.