The Court of Appeal found that the electronic search condition was overbroad because the condition did not limit the type of data on or accessible through the minor’s electronic devices that may be searched for permissible purposes. The Court modified the condition to limit warrantless searches of the minor’s electronic devices and accounts to data and communications reasonably likely to reveal whether he is violating his probation conditions.
A153826
- July 24, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Brian McComas
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
A153363
- July 15, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jamie Weyand
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Because the Court of Appeal affirmed a robbery conviction on the ground that the criminal threats supplied the requisite use of force or fear, the Court determined that Penal Code section 654 bars the defendant from being punished for both the criminal threats and robbery convictions.
A151406
- July 12, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Cynthia Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court improperly imposed 400 days in custody as a condition of probation, in excess of the statutory maximum of one year, for a conviction under Vehicle Code section 23153. The trial court further erred by imposing a higher probation revocation fine than the restitution fine, in violation of Penal Code section 1202.44. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court exceeded the maximum base fine allowed, under Vehicle Code section 23556, subdivision (a)(1), for a first-time offender of section 23153 who is placed on probation.
A151363
- July 11, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Janet Gray
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal found that the restitution award, which was based on the amount of parking tickets the defendant received while in possession of the victim’s car, was excessive. Because the tickets (with the exception of one), and the victim’s resulting losses, were not the result of the defendant’s criminal acts in committing rape and domestic battery, the Court found that restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4 was not available for any ticket that occurred prior to the offense.
A137905
- June 28, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Cara Devito
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal found that, given the lack of substantial evidence showing the defendant took a vehicle from the victim’s immediate presence by use of force or fear, the defendant’s convictions for carjacking (Penal Code section 215, subd. (a)) and conspiracy to commit carjacking (Penal Code section 182, subd. (a)(1)) could not stand.
A153489
- June 28, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Kelly Martin
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
In light of People v. Duenas, the Court of Appeal remanded the case so as to give the defendant an opportunity to request a hearing on his ability to pay the court-imposed fines, fees, and assessments. The Court declined to find that the defendant had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it at the sentencing hearing, choosing to follow the reasoning in People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134.
A153352
- June 25, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Deborah Rodriguez
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
[Published Decision] A person convicted of being an accessory to a marijuana-related felony is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 64.
A155263
- June 25, 2019
- Attorney: S. Lynne Klein
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal reversed the termination of parental rights noting that despite regular relapses into substance abuse, the record demonstrated an uncommon consensus that mother was extremely loving and appropriate in all her interactions with her child. The juvenile court abused its discretion when it focused on the relapses rather than any information about the strength and quality of the parent-child relationship.
A150976
- June 24, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Danalynn Pritz
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The trial court incorrectly calculated the defendant’s fine under Penal Code section 290.3 because the calculation was based, in part, on an offense for which punishment was stayed. The Court of Appeal, therefore, remanded the matter for a hearing regarding the mandatory penalty assessments, a determination of whether Alameda County has elected to levy the emergency medical services penalty, and a determination of defendant’s ability to pay in light of his total financial obligations. In declining to decide the defendant’s arguments based on People v. Duenas, the Court explained the defendant may raise a Duenas ability-to-pay objection during resentencing.
A155635
- June 21, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Nicole Williams/Suzanne Davidson
- Categories: Dependency, General
Minors and the mother argued the juvenile court erred when it terminated dependency jurisdiction without allowing a contested hearing. The Court of Appeal agreed. The termination order was reversed and remanded for the juvenile court to hold a contested hearing and to allow appellants to present evidence on the issue.