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.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A160837
- January 10, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Delinquency
A160718
- January 7, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Larenda Delaini
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in imposing sentence on a misdemeanor count after not announcing a verdict on that charge. In deciding to vacate the misdemeanor count, the Court of Appeal rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the case should be remanded to allow the court to correct its error.
A160663
- December 30, 2021
- Division: One
- Attorney: John Steinberg
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In a case in which appellant was convicted of both possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful possession of ammunition, the Court of Appeal held that the sentence for the unlawful possession of ammunition conviction must be stayed under Penal Code section 654. In so holding, the Court noted that, while there may be instances when multiple punishment is lawful for possession of a firearm and ammunition, the facts of this case showed an “indivisible course of conduct” in that all of the ammunition was loaded into the firearm.
A159115
- December 30, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Catherine White
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage and not issuing an order to show cause. The Court further held that appellant was entitled to relief on his petition as a matter of law because the court that convicted him in a 2000 bench trial made a finding that he did not act with reckless indifference to human life.
A158743
- December 30, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Victor Morse
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), the trial court was required to reduce appellant’s one-year terms for use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)) to four months.
A161747
- December 30, 2021
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Paul Couenhoven
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In this case, the jury rendered not true findings on the felony-murder and personal use of a weapon allegations. On appeal of the denial of appellant’s 1170.95 petition, the Court of Appeal agreed with appellant that the jury’s findings collaterally estopped the trial court from denying the 1170.95 petition based on a determination that rests on an implicit finding that appellant was the actual killer.
A159955
- December 29, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Sangeeta Sinha
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Although the Court of Appeal found that appellant could be sentenced to four years of probation even after Assembly Bill No. 1950 (appellant was convicted of a domestic violence offense and misdemeanor offenses that carry specific probation terms), the Court also found that appellant was entitled to a slight clarification of his sentence pursuant to A.B. 1950. Specifically, the court modified the order suspending imposition of appellant’s sentence and ordering him to serve four years of probation by: (1) clarifying appellant can face felony punishment consequences for a probation violation only during the first three years of his probation term because that is the maximum possible term for appellant’s domestic violence conviction; and (2) noting that any probation violation that occurs during the fourth year of his probation term can carry only misdemeanor consequences. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (m)(1))
A160737
- December 28, 2021
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Jeffrey Glick
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s Penal Code section 1170.95 petition to vacate appellant’s first-degree murder conviction without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing. In so holding, the court explained that appellant alleged facts sufficient to state a prima facie case of eligibility because appellant was not ineligible as a matter of law based upon the record of conviction.
A161097
- December 27, 2021
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Megan Hailey-Dunsheath
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal held that the police contact reporting condition was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to define what type of law enforcement contacts appellant must report. The Court further held that the written probation order must be modified to reflect that the trial court did not order appellant to reimburse the cost of preparing the presentence report, since the trial court explicitly found appellant did not have the financial ability to do so. Pursuant to the recent enactment of Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which repealed the statute that had authorized collection of the probation supervision fee, the Court struck the $21 monthly probation supervision fee. Finally, the Court reduced appellant’s probation period to two years pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which limits felony probation to a maximum term of two years for most felony offenses. In so doing, the Court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the case should be remanded so that the trial court may modify appellant’s probation term.
A159822
- December 23, 2021
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Courtney Shevelson
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
[Published Opinion] In a case in which appellant was charged with committing two unrelated murders (the Oakland and Hayward murders), the Court of Appeal found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial after the jury was allowed to hear inadmissible evidence regarding the Oakland murder in the Hayward murder case. In reaching this decision, the Court found that the trial court’s admonishment was inadequate to cure the prejudice, especially considering that the success of appellant’s defense depended largely on the jury accepting his credibility when he testified —credibility that was surely damaged by evidence this was not the first time he shot and killed an unarmed man for no apparent reason.