First District Panel Victories

Results: 571 - 580 of 630
1 56 57 58 59 60 63


The trial court awarded no presentence credits. Court of Appeal modified the judgment to award defendant 99 days of presentence conduct credit under Penal Code section 2933.1 (15% credit). Because there was no dispute as to the mathematical formula, the Court modified the judgment rather than remanding.


Remanded for resentencing so that the court can exercise its new discretion to determine whether to strike appellant’s five-year enhancement, pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1).


Appellant’s nineteen-year sentence and matter was remanded for trial court to exercise sentencing discretion for two five-year enhancements imposed pursuant to sections 667, subdivision (a) (SB 1393).


Case remanded to the trial court so the court can consider exercising its discretion to strike the Penal Code section 12022.53 firearm enhancements (SB 620) and 667, subd. (a) five-year enhancement (SB 1393).


Penal Code section 654 prohibited multiple punishment for burglary and assault where the assault was the intended felony. Even though the jury was instructed with alternative intents for entering the building (theft or assault or kidnapping), the record did not support the parsing of his intent into obtaining money and inflicting injury.


The court improperly delegated the judicial authority to decide sentencing (whether a defendant will participate in a treatment program) to the probation department, in violation of Article III, section 3 of the California Constitution. Delegation to a probation officer of a ministerial act or support service is lawful, but the ultimate responsibility of imposing sentence is a judicial function. However, the Court of Appeal did not strike the condition, choosing instead to remand the case for the trial court to reconsider it.

The Court also found that a related drug/chemical testing condition likely violated Lent because drugs were not involved in the underlying offense, and that the condition could be construed as being both overbroad and vague. Thus, the Court remanded with directions that the trial court reconsider the condition and/or modify it.


While substantial evidence supported the issuance of a protective order in a simple battery on a former cohabitant case, the record did not indicate that the judge considered the factors set forth in Penal Code section 136.2(i)(l) before determining the 10-year duration of that order. The case was remanded to the trial court to assess the appropriate length of the protective order. Some fines were also struck because they were imposed in connection with the unauthorized probationary term.


Appellant was entitled to resentencing because the recent amendments to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 abolished sentence enhancements predicated on violations of certain drug statues, including those forming the basis of appellant’s two sentence enhancements. His convictions were not final and the amendment is retroactive; thus, the Court remanded the case for resentencing in light of it striking the enhancements.


In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal held that PRCS supervisory period is not automatically extended when PRCS is reinstituted after revocation, although a trial court may choose to extend the original expiration date for PRCS within the maximum statutory period.
The length of a supervisory period is not automatically extended when postrelease community supervision (PRCS) is reinstituted after revocation; however, a trial court may choose to extend the original expiration date for PRCS within the maximum statutory period.


Remand based on trial court’s belief that it lacked the discretion to suspend imposition of the sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, sub. (h)(3). Misunderstanding warranted reversal because the record did not clearly indicate the trial court would not have exercised its discretion differently if it believed it could do so.