First District Panel Victories

Results: 41 - 50 of 630
1 3 4 5 6 7 63


The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court erred by failing to declare whether the minor’s offense (carrying a loaded firearm in public (PC 25850)) was a misdemeanor or a felony, as required under W&I 702.


In an PC 1172.6 appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in concluding that it was bound by the terms of a 2019 plea agreement, such that the court had to leave the duration of appellant’s sentence unchanged upon resentencing or seek to withdraw the prior plea agreement and relitigate the resentencing process. The Court reasoned that PC 1172.6(a)(2) not only expressly permits resentencing when a defendant was convicted by “a plea offer in lieu of trial,” but the legislative history also shows that the Legislature intended for a defendant to “be entitled to resentencing in a manner commensurate with their culpability.”


The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170 (SB 567), which, among other things, created a presumption in favor of a low prison term for certain youthful offenders.


In an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction discovery (PC 1054.9), the Court of Appeal held that appellant had established a reasonable basis that recorded statements of accomplices existed. Trial counsel identified the dates the of interviews, the interviewing agency/individual, and location of one of the interviews. The Court of Appeal further directed that the trial court correct several errors in the abstract of judgment.


[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order recusing the entire San Francisco District Attorney’s Office under PC 1424 from prosecuting defendants, the accused killers of the cousin of District Attorney Brooke Jenkins’s husband. The court finds that given Jenkins’s public statements about the case and animosity toward defendants, imposition of an “ethical wall” did not sanitize the conflict of interest because assistant district attorneys would consciously or unconsciously be more aggressive in prosecuting the case.


The Court of Appeal held that appellant, who was 20 years old when he committed his offense and claimed he suffered trauma from a substance abuse disorder, was entitled to the benefit of the ameliorative amendments to PC 1170 when the trial court executed his previously imposed sentence after appellant’s probation was terminated. Additionally, the Court held that the trial court erred by failing to require an updated probation report before revoking probation and executing sentence. The court reached these issues, notwithstanding that trial counsel failed to rise them issues below, because the record affirmatively showed the trial court did not understand the now more limited scope of its discretion. . . .”


The Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect: (1) that the court reduced the firearm enhancement for the attempted murder count from 20 years to 10 years; (2) appellant’s updated custody credits; and (3) that the court stayed punishment for assault with a firearm under PC 654. Additionally, because the trial court erroneously stayed (as opposed to struck or dismissed) several firearm enhancements, the Court remanded the matter for the trial court to clarify whether it intended to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements or the additional punishments under PC 1385.


In consolidated appeal from jurisdiction/disposition and a six-month review hearing, mother argued the juvenile court and Department failed to comply with their ICWA inquiry obligations. The Court agreed and vacated the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply. The Court noted that to affirm the orders unequivocally would leave intact an implicit judicial finding of ICWA compliance that was not supported by substantial evidence.


In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Department conceded that it failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the ICWA. The record lacked proper documentation of the social worker’s efforts to contact additional paternal relatives to ensure a thorough ICWA inquiry. The matter was conditionally reversed for ICWA compliance.


The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing, finding that appellant was entitled to the benefit of the ameliorative amendments to PC 1170 (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)) when the trial court executed his previously imposed upper term prison sentence after appellant’s probation was terminated.