The Court of Appeal found that the probation condition prohibiting appellant from having contact with a specific individual must be stricken because there was no basis in the record justifying its imposition. The Court further held that the probation condition prohibiting appellant from posting anything on the Internet that he wants certain named individuals to view was vague. Finally, the trial court was directed to specify the minor’s maximum term of confinement and calculate his pre-disposition credits.
A154139
- February 27, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Nathan Siedman
- Categories: Credits, Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
A154013
- February 20, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Leah Spero
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
Court of Appeal found that the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing a jury during deliberations on aiding and abetting liability although no evidence supported this theory, failing to instruct on the elements that had to be proven under this liability theory, and denying defense counsel’s request to address the jury regarding the theory. Reversed on two grounds: (1) the trial court committed instructional error and (2) the trial court should have given the defense an opportunity to address the jury on the new aiding and abetting theory.
A151338
- February 6, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Dirck Newbury
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The trial court erred in imposing a concurrent two-year term for a firearm possession conviction instead of staying the term under Penal Code section 654 because the firearm possession was incidental to and not separate from the primary offense of murder. The matter was also remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to strike the firearm enhancement and to allow appellant to make a record for a further youth offender parole hearing.
A151384
- February 6, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Erin Keefe
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The probation condition prohibiting appellant from entering into a position of trust or authority with a minor unless under the authority and auspices of his school is unconstitutionally vague. Matter remanded for the trial court to modify or strike the condition.
A147787
- January 31, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: John Schuck
- Categories: Criminal, General
A jury convicted appellant of sexual penetration of a person prevented from resisting by an intoxicating substance (Penal Code § 289, subd. (e)), as well as simple battery (Penal Code § 242). The Court of Appeal reversed the simple battery conviction, finding it was a lesser included offense of the unlawful sexual penetration as defined by section 289, subd. (k)(1).
A155744
- January 31, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Jeremy Price
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The trial court improperly revoked appellant’s parole because he did not know his wife kept a gun in their bedroom closet. Although appellant was paroled with a weapons restriction, both parties agreed on appeal that the weapons restriction should have been construed to include a knowledge requirement. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment revoking appellant’s parole.
A153432
- January 22, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Elizabeth Eng
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, General
The Court of Appeal reversed a receiving stolen property charge, finding that a criminal defendant (even those involved in a juvenile adjudication) cannot be convicted of both carjacking and receiving stolen property, or of robbery and receiving stolen property, when the same property underlies both offenses.
A151650
- January 17, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jamie Weyand
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Because the attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) at issue in this case comprised an indivisible transaction in which appellant had a single intent and objective, the trial court’s imposition of concurrent sentences for these offenses violated Penal Code section 654, which prohibits multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct. The Court of Appeal, therefore, stayed the criminal threats sentence.
A148655
- January 15, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Rudolph Alejo
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Probation condition prohibiting possession of obvious burglary tools was unconstitutionally vague. Modified to prohibit possession of items the defendant knows are to be used or that he intends to use as burglary tools.
A154038
- January 14, 2019
- Attorney: Louise Collari
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition, Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal found there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional and dispositional findings. The Court directed the juvenile to vacate its prior order and enter an order terminating jurisdiction over the minor. Even though the child had been returned to the care of mother during the appeal, the Court found that the appeal was not moot. The Court also stated that mother had not forfeited the right to challenge the jurisdictional findings even though her attorney conceded jurisdiction was appropriate and only asked the court to conform the petition to proof.