The Court of Appeal found the drug related condition of probation “that appellant may not possess or use drugs other than those prescribed to you by a doctor who is treating you” was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face because it prevented appellant from possessing or using over the counter medication. The Court modified the condition to read: Appellant shall not possess, use, or sell any drugs or intoxicants (including alcohol and marijuana), excluding pharmaceutical drugs prescribed by appellant’s doctor or legal nonprescription drugs.
A154600
- September 9, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jessica Ronco
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
A153400
- August 30, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Cliff Gardner
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of momentary possession. Substantial evidence presented at trial permitted at least two reasonable inferences: (1) defendant knew he held a gun and did not possess it solely with an intent to dispose of it and (2) he was unaware he held a gun until it fired, at which time he threw it away to stop it from firing. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense, the Court concluded the trial court erred in failing to give the instruction. Because the error was prejudicial, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment.
A154054
- August 29, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Victoria Stafford
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
Court of Appeal modified the judgment to award appellant one additional day of custody credits.
A155792
- August 29, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Janice Wellborn
- Categories: Criminal, General, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a resentencing hearing while appellant’s petition for review was pending in the California Supreme Court and improperly denied counsel’s request that appellant be present for the resentencing hearing. The AG conceded that the court erred in both respects.
A153155
- August 28, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: William Capriola
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Because the trial court imposed a concurrent determinate term on count 2 (assault with intent to commit a sex offense – Penal Code section 220, subd. (a)(1)), the Court of Appeal found the enhancement attendant to that conviction must also run concurrently. The Court further remanded the matter for the trial court to exercise its discretion to impose or strike a single prior prison term enhancement. In doing so, the Court found appellant had only served one prior prison term under Penal Code section 667.5 (as opposed to the seven alleged in the information) because all of appellant’s prior convictions were served in one continuous prison term.
A153536
- August 28, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law
The Court of Appeal found that the mental health diversion statute (Penal Code section 1001.36) to be retroactive under Estrada, conditionally reversed the judgment, and remanded for a diversion eligibility hearing. In so ruling, Div. 2 rejected the position of the AG that a remand would be futile.
A153973
- August 28, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Criminal, Discovery
The Court of Appeal fully reversed the judgment, finding the trial court prejudicially erred in denying a new trial motion based on the failure of the prosecutor to disclose – per Brady – information about the credibility (or lack thereof) of a police officer who was the primary witness of the state. The Court of Appeal sided with appellant, rejecting the argument that the state did not withhold evidence and that the evidence in question was not material.
A154480
- August 28, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: David Thompson
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Sentencing
Because the prosecution produced no evidence that appellant harbored more than one objective, Penal Code section 654 precluded punishment for both depositing a hazardous substance and vandalism. The Court of Appeal, therefore, stayed the eight-month consecutive sentence imposed on appellant for depositing a hazardous substance. The Court further remanded the matter for the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment and specify the bases for the assessments imposed on appellant.
A155022
- August 28, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Bobbie Stein
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded to the trial court with directions to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike appellant’s five-year prior serious felony enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
A155863
- August 28, 2019
- Attorney: Mara Bernstein
- Categories: Dependency, General
In this appeal by mother from a status review hearing, the Court of Appeal agreed that the juvenile court erred by granting the request of the de facto parents for disclosure of confidential juvenile case file documents without requiring compliance with WIC section 827 and Rule 5.552.