The Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that the minor committed a battery against a police officer (PC sec. 242) or that he resisted arrest (PC sec. 148, subd. (a)(1)). As to the battery, the court found that the minor’s contact with the officer was incidental to his attempt to move away from the officer’s hand, and that the contact was neither willful nor harmful or offensive (two required elements of battery). As for the resisting arrest charge, the court found that the officer was not enforcing any disciplinary rules in his encounter with the minor, that the officer had only requested (not ordered) the minor to follow instructions, and that insufficient evidence supported that the minor knew or reasonably should have know that the officer was engaged in the performance of his duties when he grabbed the minor’s arm.
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District. Unfortunately, we were not able to update our First District victories page during that time. Even though the victories are not on the website, we appreciate all of the hard work done by the panel and continued dedication to our clients.**
A155082
- September 25, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Nathaniel Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sentencing
A156764
- September 25, 2019
- Attorney: Nathaniel Miller
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal conditionally vacated the jurisdictional and disposition orders and remanded the matter for further proceedings because the prosecutor failed to provide proper notice of the minor’s eligibility for a deferred entry of judgment under section 790 et seq. and rule 5.800 of the California Rules of Court, and the juvenile court failed to consider whether he was suitable for it.
A153257
- September 25, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Kyle Gee
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 12022.53 (firearm enhancement).
A154498
- September 20, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Richard Tamor
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions, Sentencing
[Published Decision – 40 Cal.App.5th 126] Although the Court of Appeal interpreted Penal Code section 466 to prohibit a person from having burglary tools “upon him or her or in his or her possession,” the Court nevertheless reversed the defendant’s conviction for possession of burglary tools because the special jury instruction on that offense prejudicially omitted the felonious intent element. The court also agreed with the parties that the trial court erred by staying, instead of striking, one of the prior-prison-term enhancements.
A154923
- September 20, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
[Published Opinion] Although the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to impose an electronic search condition, it found the condition imposed swept too broadly, and so remand for the juvenile court to consider imposing a narrower search condition.
A154196
- September 11, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Catherine White
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
In the published portion of this decision, the Court held that Penal Code section 1001.36 (mental health diversion) applies retroactively to all cases not yet final. As such, in the unpublished portion, the Court agreed that a conditional reversal and remand was appropriate so the trial court could consider his diversion eligibility, despite the AG arguing that it would be futile because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If on remand the court determines appellant is not eligible for section 1001.36 relief, his convictions and sentence would be reinstated, but the trial court was directed to stay the sentence for one of the firearm enhancements, as the offense to which it was attached was also stayed.
A154600
- September 9, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jessica Ronco
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal found the drug related condition of probation “that appellant may not possess or use drugs other than those prescribed to you by a doctor who is treating you” was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face because it prevented appellant from possessing or using over the counter medication. The Court modified the condition to read: Appellant shall not possess, use, or sell any drugs or intoxicants (including alcohol and marijuana), excluding pharmaceutical drugs prescribed by appellant’s doctor or legal nonprescription drugs.
A153527
- September 9, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Patrick McKenna
- Categories: Criminal, Habeas
The Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant’s habeas order, which reduced his 51-year aggregate sentence to 45 years and 8 months, but contained an unlawful sentence, was not void because (1) the defendant was entitled to petition the superior court for a writ of habeas corpus without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause; (2) the superior court could change an unlawful sentence at any time and (3) the court could reconsider the sentence upon notice from the CDCR of its possible illegality.
A153400
- August 30, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Cliff Gardner
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of momentary possession. Substantial evidence presented at trial permitted at least two reasonable inferences: (1) defendant knew he held a gun and did not possess it solely with an intent to dispose of it and (2) he was unaware he held a gun until it fired, at which time he threw it away to stop it from firing. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense, the Court concluded the trial court erred in failing to give the instruction. Because the error was prejudicial, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment.
A154054
- August 29, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Victoria Stafford
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
Court of Appeal modified the judgment to award appellant one additional day of custody credits.