In support of an upper term sentence, the trial court relied on three aggravating factors: (1) the jury found true that appellant was armed with a weapon as part of his conviction; (2) appellant has prior convictions; and (3) appellant has served a prior prison term. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by relying on the first factor because appellant was not convicted of assault with a deadly weapon; rather, he was convicted of assault by a prisoner by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and being armed with a weapon is not part of that offense. The Court also held that the trial court erred in concluding that appellant’s current prison sentence established the aggravating circumstance of appellant having previously served a prison term. Following the two-step approached outlined in People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 459, the Court found this error was not harmless and remanded for resentencing.
A164660
- August 30, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Lillian Hamrick
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A164897
- August 30, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s conviction where the trial court excluded evidence that a child victim believed she was helping her mother obtain a “U visa” when she accused appellant of sexual assault. The Court found that the exclusion of the evidence violated appellant’s right to confront witnesses under the federal and state constitutions and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman.
A167147
- August 29, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Jamie Moran
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the court conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights due to the Department’s failure to document any effort to ask identified and available extended family members about the children’s possible Native American ancestry. Based on father’s claim of Indian ancestry, it was clear from the beginning of the case that WIC 224.2 applied. The Department conceded the error and the matter was remanded for ICWA compliance.
A152748
- August 28, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Victor Morse
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The trial court granted petitioner’s habeas petition after People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 invalidated the natural and probable consequences doctrine for first degree premeditated murder. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the Chiu error was harmless because the jury found true a gang-murder special circumstance which included the finding that petitioner intended to kill (PC 190.2(a)(22)). The Supreme Court granted review and concluded that the special circumstance was insufficient standing alone to establish harmlessness. On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal finds that the Chiu error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirms the trial court’s order granting petitioner’s habeas petition.
A165744
- August 25, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: J. Wilder Lee
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal held that appellants’ gang enhancements must be reversed and vacated based on AB 333’s amendments to PC 186.22.
A163740
- August 24, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Rando Covin
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacates the trial court’s denial of appellant’s PC 1172.6 resentencing petition, finding that, although “the record appears replete with evidence that [appellant] was a major participant in the robbery who acted with reckless indifference for human life,” the court should have considered appellant’s youth as part of the totality of the circumstances.
A166083
- August 23, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: David Bernstein
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
In accordance with People Delgado (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 95, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court order denying appellant’s request for a Franklin hearing. The Court found that appellant is entitled to a make a record of youth-related factors for his future parole hearing under PC 3041.5.
A166002
- August 21, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: David Bernstein
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal vacated the $25 administrative screening fee, which was imposed pursuant to former PC 1463.07.
A162883
- August 18, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Paul Couenhoven
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
The Court of Appeal remanded to permit the trial court to resentence appellant under the amended version of PC 1170(b) and to recalculate his presentence credits. As to the credits issue, the trial court erroneously believed that PC 667(c)(5) prohibited presentence conduct credits for Three Strikes law offenders. However, the Three Strikes law only limits postsetenece credits.
A164007
- August 18, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Tiffany Gates
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s attempted murder conviction, finding that the trial court prejudicially erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter based on a heat of passion theory. The Court reasoned that substantial evidence supported that appellant acted under heat of passion caused by the victim’s provocative act, where the evidence showed appellant cut the victim’s neck immediately after the victim backed up and nearly hit appellant with his car.