The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to conduct a mental health diversion eligibility hearing under Penal Code section 1001.36, which became effective after she was convicted of various offenses, but before her probation was revoked and she was sentenced to prison. In reaching this conclusion, the Court found that section 1001.36 applied retroactively.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A156607
- December 16, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Richard Fitzer
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law
A157313
- December 13, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Rodney Jones
- Categories: Criminal, General
After pleading guilty to four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code,1 § 261.5, subd. (c)), appellant was sentenced to a split sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)) comprised of two years in county jail and two years on mandatory supervision. Following appellant’s release from county jail, the court found that appellant had agreed as part of the negotiated plea to a lifetime registration requirement under Penal Code section 290. Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal found that the parties agreed that appellant would only have to register during her mandatory supervision (not the lifetime registration requirement the trial court imposed).
A151914
- December 10, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
In light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, the Court of Appeal modified the minor’s electronic search condition to read: Any medium of communication, including social media, call logs, text messaging and email, on any electronic devices under your control is subject to search for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with the no-contact order. You must turn over any passwords with respect to those means of communication and provide that information to law enforcement or any probation officer.
A155677
- December 9, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Nathaniel Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Fourth Amendment
In reviewing the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, the Court of Appeal found that while the circumstances of the case may have supported a detention, they did not, either singularly or collectively, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that appellant was armed or dangerous. Here, appellant matched the description of a cell phone theft suspect, “appeared nervous” when speaking to the officer, “deceptively answered” the officer’s question, was wearing baggy clothing, and had a “relatively heavy” backpack. The Court of Appeal remanded the case and instructed the juvenile court to vacate its order denying the suppression motion, enter a new order granting the motion, and allow the minor to withdraw his plea.
A151733
- December 6, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Karriem Baker
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
Court of Appeal reversed one of the appellant’s criminal threat convictions (Pen. Code section 422) for failure to instruct on the lesser included attempt offense. Here, appellant made the threat in question, but the intended recipient did not hear it. The Court found that, although the defendant acted with the specific intent to commit a criminal threat, only a fortuity, not intended by the defendant, has prevented the defendant from perpetrating the completed offense of criminal threat itself. The error was not harmless under Watson.
A155561
- November 25, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
In light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, the court remanded the case to the juvenile court with instructions to strike the electronics search condition and, if appropriate, to recraft it more narrowly consistent with Supreme Court’s ruling.
A155725
- November 22, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Audrey Chavez
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s one-year prison term enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b) must be stricken in light of Senate Bill No. 136. Effective January 1, 2020, amended section 667.5, subd.(b) imposes that additional one-year term only for a prior prison term served for a sexually violent offense, which was not the case for appellant.
A152184
- November 20, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Stephen Bedrick
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Court of Appeal remand the case to the trial court in light of Senate Bill No. 620, in order to permit the court to exercise its discretion whether to strike the firearm enhancements pursuant to amended Penal Code sections 12022.5, subdivision (c), and 12022.53, subdivision (h).
A148767
- November 20, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: David Sundelson
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
In a case where the defendant was charged with felony child abuse (Pen. Code, § 279a, subd. (a)), the trial court erred when it allowed the defendant’s adult daughter to testify about three incidents during her own childhood in which she claimed defendant had abused her too, the details of which she only vaguely recalled, and all of which were considerably different than the charged offense. None of these incidents had much, if any, probative value and yet all three were prejudicial. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment.
A154484
- November 18, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Megan Hailey-Dunsheath
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
Because insufficient evidence supported that appellant obtained over $950 worth of goods or services from the two credit card accounts she opened in her deceased stepfather’s name, the Court of Appeal reduced appellant’s conviction of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 484g) to petty theft (Pen. Code, § 490). The Court also remanded the case for consideration of whether appellant’s identity theft conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 and to clarify whether imposition or execution of sentence was suspended.