The Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating mother’s parental rights and remanded the matter for a new WIC 366.26 hearing. The Court found the juvenile court misapplied the three-step beneficial relationship exception as articulated in In re Caden C. when it placed heavy weight on mother’s inability to overcome her drug problem.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A162268
- January 30, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Elizabeth Klippi
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
A159406
- January 26, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Edward Haggerty
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing based on the new sentencing legislation that amended Penal Code sections 654 and 1170, subdivision (b). (See Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), Assembly Bill No. 124 (Stats. 2021, ch. 695), and Assembly Bill No. 518 (Stats. 2021, ch. 441).) In so doing, the Court found that the amendments apply retroactively.
A160618
- January 24, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Gordon Brownell
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The trial court denied appellant’s 1170.95 petition for resentencing on the ground that he did not qualify for relief because his homicide conviction was for manslaughter rather than murder. In light of Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended section 1170.95 to expressly authorize a person convicted of manslaughter to file a petition for resentencing, the Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the petition and remanded for the trial court to consider whether appellant has established a prima facie case for relief, and to conduct such further proceedings as may be required.
A156114
- January 20, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: David Polsky
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal found that the trial court misstated the law when it instructed the jury on Penal Code section 311.2, subdivision (b) because the instructions made it clear to the jury that the element of commercial consideration required nothing more than an intent to trade or induce others to trade in obscene matter over the Internet. However, based on the principals of statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeal concluded that the element of commercial consideration in Penal Code section 311.2, subdivision (b) requires proof that the defendant received or intended to receive payment at the time he or she distributed, exhibited or exchanged obscene matter involving minors performing or simulating sex acts.
A162555
- January 19, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Theresa Stevenson
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal struck three one-year prison prior enhancements (Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b)) in light of Senate Bill No. 136, which limited prior prison term enhancements to “sexually violent” offenses. (Pen. Code, § 1171.1, subd. (a).) In so doing, the Court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that a remand was the proper remedy, noting that Senate Bill No. 136 “shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 1.)
A158366
- January 19, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Stephen Greenberg
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In light of Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended section 1170.95 to expressly authorize a person convicted of manslaughter to file a petition for resentencing, the Court of Appeal vacated its prior opinion affirming the denial of appellant’s 1170.95 petition, revered the order denying the petition, and remand the matter to the trial court to conduct further proceedings.
A160578
- January 13, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Charles Dell’Ario
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] Because appellant was 22 years old at the time of the offense, the Court of Appeal held that appellant’s six-year midterm sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence him under the newly amended version of section 1170, subdivision (b), which, among other things, now has a presumption in favor of a low prison term when a defendant is under 26 years of age at the time of the offense.
A160262
- January 12, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Sandra Gillies
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal reversed the order summarily denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition, finding that the trial court’s reliance on the Court of Appeal’s opinion in his case was improper, and that the record of conviction did not conclusively eliminate the possibility that the jury found appellant guilty of murder on a theory under which malice was imputed to him based solely on his participation in a crime. Accordingly, the Court remanded for the trial court to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.
A160771
- January 11, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Cynthia Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that appellant was entitled to remand for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 567, which requires that circumstances in aggravation used to justify imposition of the upper term be found true by the jury or admitted by the defendant. In this case, the Attorney General conceded that SB 567 applies retroactively.
A160837
- January 10, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Delinquency
In this case, the juvenile court sustained allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging a minor committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). Relying on the holding of People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d, the Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s finding on a grand theft count as a lesser included offense of robbery.