Case remanded to the trial court so the court can consider exercising its discretion to strike the Penal Code section 12022.53 firearm enhancements (SB 620) and 667, subd. (a) five-year enhancement (SB 1393).
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District.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.**
A150170
- January 10, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Victor Blumenkrantz, Ronald Boyer, Kyle Gee
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A144481
- January 3, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Marylou Hillberg
- Categories: Criminal, General
Penal Code section 654 prohibited multiple punishment for burglary and assault where the assault was the intended felony. Even though the jury was instructed with alternative intents for entering the building (theft or assault or kidnapping), the record did not support the parsing of his intent into obtaining money and inflicting injury.
A153531
- December 27, 2018
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Lauren Dodge
- Categories: Criminal, General, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The court improperly delegated the judicial authority to decide sentencing (whether a defendant will participate in a treatment program) to the probation department, in violation of Article III, section 3 of the California Constitution. Delegation to a probation officer of a ministerial act or support service is lawful, but the ultimate responsibility of imposing sentence is a judicial function. However, the Court of Appeal did not strike the condition, choosing instead to remand the case for the trial court to reconsider it.
The Court also found that a related drug/chemical testing condition likely violated Lent because drugs were not involved in the underlying offense, and that the condition could be construed as being both overbroad and vague. Thus, the Court remanded with directions that the trial court reconsider the condition and/or modify it.
A151933
- December 21, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Leslie Prince
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, General
While substantial evidence supported the issuance of a protective order in a simple battery on a former cohabitant case, the record did not indicate that the judge considered the factors set forth in Penal Code section 136.2(i)(l) before determining the 10-year duration of that order. The case was remanded to the trial court to assess the appropriate length of the protective order. Some fines were also struck because they were imposed in connection with the unauthorized probationary term.
A151559
- December 18, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Garrick Byers
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal held that PRCS supervisory period is not automatically extended when PRCS is reinstituted after revocation, although a trial court may choose to extend the original expiration date for PRCS within the maximum statutory period.
The length of a supervisory period is not automatically extended when postrelease community supervision (PRCS) is reinstituted after revocation; however, a trial court may choose to extend the original expiration date for PRCS within the maximum statutory period.
A146509
- December 18, 2018
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
Appellant was entitled to resentencing because the recent amendments to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 abolished sentence enhancements predicated on violations of certain drug statues, including those forming the basis of appellant’s two sentence enhancements. His convictions were not final and the amendment is retroactive; thus, the Court remanded the case for resentencing in light of it striking the enhancements.
A150858
- December 14, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Michael Allen
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike the gun use and prior serious felony enhancements (Penal Code, §§ 12022.53, 667(a)). In so doing, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court comments about hypothetical discretion does not necessarily indicate what the trial court would do in an actual exercise of discretion.
A153761
- December 14, 2018
- Attorney: Aida Aslanian
- Categories: Dependency, Petitions to Modify (Section 388)
The Court of Appeal found the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying maternal grandmother’s section 388 petition for modification. The Court remanded the matter for a hearing on the merits of the petition and directed the juvenile court to appoint counsel to represent maternal grandmother in those proceedings.
A149862
- December 14, 2018
- Division: Three
- Attorney: William Lee
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Remand based on trial court’s belief that it lacked the discretion to suspend imposition of the sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, sub. (h)(3). Misunderstanding warranted reversal because the record did not clearly indicate the trial court would not have exercised its discretion differently if it believed it could do so.
A150584
- December 14, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Gordon Brownell
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Remand to 1) correct sentencing error, which was imposition of full, consecutive sentence instead of 1/3 the mid-term as a subordinate term in violation of PC 1170.1 and 2) allow court to exercise discretion to strike gun-use and serious prior felony enhancements.