In a case in which appellant was convicted, following a jury trial, of first-degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187), the Court of Appeal found that the finding of premeditation and deliberation lacked substantial evidence, and accordingly reduced the murder to second degree. While the Court noted that there was some evidence of motive, the Court explained that was insufficient to support the verdict considering the lack of evidence showing any planning and the manner of killing not evidencing premeditation.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A159307
- December 7, 2021
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Alan Siraco
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
A161582
- November 30, 2021
- Division: One
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision, Retroactivity of Changes in Law
Finding the recent amendment to Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a) (Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.)) applies retroactively, the Court of Appeal ordered that appellant’s probation be reduced from five years to three years (not one year because appellant’s specific offense designated a minimum probation length of three years).
A161118
- November 30, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] In a case in which the juvenile court found a minor committed one count of reckless evasion of a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subdivision (a)), deadly weapon assault (Pen. Code, § 245(c)), and assault with force likely to produced great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245(a)(4)), the Court of Appeal held that the minor’s punishment for reckless evasion and one of the assault counts must be stayed under Penal Code section 654 because all of the counts were based on an indivisible course of conduct committed against the same victims. The Court also found that the juvenile court failed to designate the wobbler offenses as either felonies or misdemeanors. (Welf. and Inst. Code, § 702.)
A160987
- November 29, 2021
- Division: One
- Attorney: Rudolph Kraft
- Categories: Civil Commitment
Following the reasoning in Conservator of A.B. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 384, the Court of Appeal held that Probate Code section 2942 does not authorize compensation for services based solely on a showing that the fees were necessary to sustain the support and maintenance of the conservatee. Rather, it also requires consideration of whether the requested compensation is just and reasonable in light of the conservatee’s financial circumstances.
A159914
- November 23, 2021
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jeremy Price
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held that, under the plain language of Penal Code section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1), a court is required to receive a parole agency’s written report before ruling on a parole revocation petition initiated by a district attorney. This is the case even when such a petition is filed against a lifetime parolee, because the report is not pointless even though a court has no discretion to impose intermediate sanctions.
A159154
- November 22, 2021
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Dirck Newbury
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Based on appellant’s convictions for continuous sexual abuse, the trial court imposed two consecutive 25 years to life terms. The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court erroneously believed it was required to do so under Penal Code section 667.61, and remanded the matter so that the trial court may exercise informed discretion.
A159191
- November 18, 2021
- Division: One
- Attorney: William Hassler
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Pursuant to the recent amendment to Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a) (Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.)), the Court of Appeal ordered that appellant’s probation be reduced from three years to two years.
A159537
- November 18, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Criminal, Right to Counsel
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court violated appellant’s right to counsel when it denied her requests to substitute her newly retained attorney on the first day of trial and for a continuance to allow him to prepare. In reaching this decision, the Court noted that there was an absence of evidence to support the proposed continuance would significantly inconvenience the court or parties or that appellant’s request was the result of “gamesmanship.” To the contrary, the Court explained that the record showed appellant’s request to substitute counsel was based on a longstanding and genuine desire to replace her appointed attorney, and that her family was unable to secure sufficient funding until just before the date set for trial.
A162399
- November 18, 2021
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Liana Serobian
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
In an appeal from disposition, the Court of Appeal agreed that the juvenile court erred when it removed the child from father. The Court found that there was no substantial evidence that the child could not safely remain in father’s physical custody under the supervision of the juvenile court, with appropriate safeguards to ensure her safety and protection. The Court noted that the question of protective measures less drastic than removal from father’s custody were scarcely considered by the juvenile court.
A162584
- November 17, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Sean Burleigh
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded the matter for a new WIC section 366.26 hearing in light of the legal standards articulated in In re Caden C. The Court did not reach the issue of whether or not the juvenile court abused its discretion in failing to grant mother’s request for continuance to clarify the caretaker aunt’s preference as to the permanent plan, but did indicate that the aunt’s preference and the applicability of the relative guardian exception to the termination of parental rights should be considered on remand.