Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded to the juvenile court pursuant to Proposition 57, which amended the law to eliminate direct filing by prosecutors in adult criminal court. The juvenile court was ordered to hold a transfer hearing on whether the matter should have proceeded in juvenile court. If the juvenile court determines defendant is amenable to the court’s jurisdiction, his conviction shall be deemed a juvenile adjudication and the juvenile court shall impose an appropriate disposition. If the juvenile court concludes the matter should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, defendant’s conviction shall be reinstated.
A149231
- December 11, 2018
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Richard Such
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, General
A146666
- November 30, 2018
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Waldemar Halka
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, General
After the passage of Proposition 57, appellant, who was convicted in criminal (or adult) court of first degree murder with special circumstances for crimes that occurred when he was a minor, is entitled to a transfer hearing in juvenile court to determine whether he was fit to be tried in adult court. The judgment of conviction was conditionally reversed, and will only be reinstated if the juvenile court determines it would have transferred appellant to adult court under the current law.
A153101
- November 30, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: David Kaiser
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
[Partial Published Decision] An order that defendant pay a probation supervision fee was improper based on the probation officer’s recommendation because the probation officer did not determine ability to pay or the manner in which payment would be made, as required by Penal Code section 1203.1b, and the sentencing court was thus unable to assess those determinations.
A147411
- November 16, 2018
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Victoria Stafford
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law
The Court of Appeal held that Senate Bill No. 1393 newly vesting trial courts with discretion to dismiss 5-year serious prior felony conviction enhancements is retroactive under Estrada and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
A150474
- November 15, 2018
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Sidney Hollar
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
1) Probation condition requiring minor to “obey all rules and regulations” of electronic monitoring program was vague where the court could only guess what the rules and regulations of the EMP may be. 2) Condition that monitoring by “responsible adult” was vague and the court struck the term responsible. 3) Condition prohibiting possession or viewing of “pornographic material” modified to require the probation officer to specify materials. Court also held that condition not to possess or utilize electronic data storage devise that automatically or remotely deletes data was overbroad because it could prevent Minor from using a public or school library computer.
A152811
- November 15, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Richard Schwartzberg
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision, Sufficiency of the Evidence
Reversed order revoking parole that was based on battery and resisting arrest due to overwhelming evidence that appellant was unconscious. Trial court abused its discretion in concluding that appellant was acting in a rational way and thus conscious where such a finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Evidence showed appellant suddenly behaved in a bizarre manner after smoking several cigarette butts. He acted consistently with having smoked a drug (unknowingly).
A154352
- November 15, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jamie Weyand
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal reversed order revoking probation based on unsuccessful termination from drug court. The trial court found failure to appear in drug court was not willful. On appeal, the Court found that the prosecution did not meet its burden to show either willful violation or that the violation of the condition frustrated the assumptions underlying the grant of probation.
A146433
- November 9, 2018
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Peter Gold
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, General
Appellant entitled to transfer hearing per Prop 57 and People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299. If juvenile court retains jurisdiction, it will impose appropriate disposition. If transferred to adult court, convictions reinstated. Remand also for court to exercise discretion whether to strike gun-use enhancements.
A148902
- November 5, 2018
- Division: Three
- Attorney: William Capriola
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Vandalism conviction must be stayed under Penal Code section 654 where the evidence established appellant broke two windows as part of a single course of conduct to get inside the house. There was no substantial evidence to support independent criminal objectives in committing the burglary and vandalism.
A148398
- November 2, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Janet Gray
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Respondent agreed with appellant that the trial court did not understand is discretion in imposing principle term under Penal Code section 1170.1, which “is not necessarily the longest term available under the applicable sentencing triads.” (People v. Miller (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 206, 215-216.) Appellate court remanded for resentencing because the record did not clearly indicate that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion had it been aware of its discretion.