The Court of Appeal remanded for a full resentencing because the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it sentenced appellant under the Two Strikes law as an enhancement of the determinate base term. Because the Two Strikes law sets out an alternate penalty, not an additional term, “the trial court may either sentence the defendant under the penalty specified in the underlying statute or based on the Two Strikes law, but not both.”
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A170609
- March 13, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Aaron Schechter
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A174187
- March 13, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a full resentencing under PC 1172.75, with directions to appoint counsel. The trial court, upon being notified by CDCR of appellant’s eligibility for resentencing, dismissed three years of enhancements but did not conduct a full resentencing. Appellant was also “not notified of the court’s intent to modify the judgment, was not appointed counsel, was not notified of any court proceedings related to modification of the judgment, and did not appear at any such proceedings.”
A169378
- March 12, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order because it erroneously considered the probation report during the contested hearing. The evidence at the hearing was “close” and “did not conclusively establish” appellant’s involvement in the underlying robbery, so the error was prejudicial.
A171622
- March 12, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Mark Goldrosen
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a new sentencing hearing because appellant presented sufficient proof of childhood trauma so as to trigger the lower-term presumption. The lower court made no findings that imposing the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, yet it imposed the middle term.
A172041
- March 12, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Richard Braucher
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal vacated an order directing appellant to pay restitution to the insurer of the victim, her employer. Because only a “direct victim” of a crime may receive restitution, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the insurer.
A173420
- March 11, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Ellen Ivens-Duran
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal struck a $41 fine that the trial court erroneously imposed and stayed. The trial court had imposed the fine under PC 1202.5, which authorizes fines for enumerated theft offenses but not resisting or deterring an officer to which appellant pled no contest.
A173712
- March 10, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Suzanne Davidson
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition, Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal agreed with mother that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under WIC 300(b)(1)(a) was legally and factually insufficient. The jurisdiction and disposition orders were reversed and the court was directed to dismiss the dependency petition.
A172714
- March 9, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Stephanie Marie Adraktas
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck an electronics search condition as invalid under Lent. There was no connection between the use of electronics and the underlying conduct, and there was “no evidence whatsoever” that appellant’s use of electronics “might reflect on his potential for future criminality.” The Court rejected the government’s proposed modification because the condition would still satisfy the Lent factors.
A173218
- March 6, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Elizabeth Thornton
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
Mother appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings. The appellate court found that the jurisdictional findings were supported by substantial evidence but reversed the dispositional order. Substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding there were no reasonable means to protect the child without removing her from mother’s care or that the Bureau made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal. In addition, the juvenile court erred by failing to state the facts on which it based its removal findings.
A173844
- February 25, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Nat Miller
- Categories: Criminal
The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the denial of pretrial mental health diversion (PC 1001.36), holding the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion by focusing on appellant’s generalized risk of violence rather than the required inquiry: whether appellant posed an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike offense.