The Court of Appeal struck two gang terms as conditions of probation in the absence of a “gang nexus.” Nothing in the record suggested the gang terms were reasonably related to the minor’s future criminality, other than the trial court’s statement that it was “just trying to make sure he didn’t become involved.”
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A173764
- April 22, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Ellen Ivens-Duran
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
A171924
- April 20, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Brian McComas
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s felony vandalism convictions, which each required proof of $400 of damage, because improper hearsay was the only evidence of the “damage value” and nothing in the record foreclosed reasonable doubt as to that element. The Court remanded with instructions for the government to either retry appellant on the felony charges or accept reductions to misdemeanor convictions.
A169330
- April 16, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Danalynn Pritz
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing on two counts because the trial court failed to pronounce sentence on the enhancements attached to those convictions and did not state whether it was selecting the lower, middle, or upper term for each.
A169802
- April 8, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Heather Monasky
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the sentence and remanded because, while appellant was on probation, SB 567 amended PC 1170(b), changing the maximum term sentence to the middle term, unless aggravating factors are stipulated to by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite this change in the law, after finding appellant violated his probation, the trial court executed the upper term sentence without a proper showing.
A170809
- April 7, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Audrey Chavez
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal ordered modification of the judgment to reduce the restitution award by $1,594.29. The trial court erred in ordering appellant to pay restitution for the travel expense that the victim incurred prior to the offense because such economic loss was not a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.
A173114
- April 6, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: J. Bradley O'Connell
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal remanded to the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment that: incorrectly included a $40 court operations assessment and a $30 conviction assessment which were never imposed; and failed to reflect that a $300 fine imposed per PC 1202.45 was suspended by the court unless parole was revoked.
A173553
- April 1, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Elizabeth Klippi
- Categories: Dependency, Review Hearings
Father appealed from the combined six- and 12-month review hearing, arguing that he was not provided with reasonable services in two critical areas: 1) the AOD assessment and treatment and 2) special-needs parenting classes. The Court of Appeal agreed. Services were not reasonable when the Agency offered AOD and assessment services only a few weeks before the combined hearing and failed to provide any “useful, concrete resources” to help father enroll in the necessary parenting classes.
A167598
- March 30, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Geoff Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal ordered a stay of one of appellant’s sentences under PC 654. The 180-day sentence imposed for simple battery was based on the same act as another conviction (PC 269(a)(3)) for which 15-to-life was imposed.
A169353
- March 27, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Deborah Hawkins
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal modified the judgment under PC 654 to stay appellant’s sentence for conspiracy to commit murder after the trial court imposed two concurrent sentences for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
A172030
- March 26, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Leslie Prince
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s conviction under PC 289(k)(1) for insufficient evidence and remanded for resentencing.