The Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to strike the conviction on one of the two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The convictions were based on two distinct incidents occurring two days apart. The court noted that this offense is a continuing offense, and there was no evidence that the defendant used two different guns or that he ever lost and regained control of the one gun. The Court further instructed the trial court to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements and to hold a hearing in which the defendant can make an adequate record of any and all youth-related factors in anticipation of his eventual youth offender parole hearing.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A146665
- April 2, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Candace Hale
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
A153933
- April 2, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Amanda Roze
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal modified the minor’s probation condition prohibiting him from using, possessing, or transporting any weapons & related items to include an intent element. The court also deleted the language referring to items “someone else” may consider to be a weapon.
A153293
- March 29, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Linda Harvie
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The trial court lacked the authority to impose probation conditions on the minor once the court committed the minor to the DJJ. The conditions were stricken.
A152993
- March 29, 2019
- Attorney: Karen Elcaness
- Categories: Dependency, General, Jurisdiction
[Published decision – 33 Cal.App.5th 835]The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it issued exit orders awarding custody of the minor to father and terminating jurisdiction. In reversing the orders of the juvenile court, the Court found that the juvenile court strayed significantly from the statutory framework. The Court also addressed issues relating to the applicability of the UCCJEA and that post-appeal events did not render the appeal moot.
A152525
- March 28, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Steven Lubliner
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof
Under People v. Gallardo, the trial court violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights by relying on an ambiguous record of his Nevada convictions in order to find true the prior strike allegations against appellant. Like in Gallardo, the proper remedy was to remand the case.
A152729
- March 28, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: John Schuck
- Categories: Criminal, Prosecutorial, Juror, and Judicial Misconduct
Trial court abused its discretion in removing a juror from the jury based on the juror’s inability to perform his or her duty. The trial court found that the juror considered information outside of the evidence that was admitted into trial, applied different and incorrect standards of the burden of proof, failed to follow the law and instructions as given, and considered punishment. The Court of Appeal found the trial court’s reasoning for discharging the juror was not manifestly supported by the evidence.
A152479
- March 26, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Patrick McKenna
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The terms “pornography” and “sexually explicit” images or material, as used in two of the minor’s probation conditions, are unconstitutionally vague and do not provide fair warning about the prohibited conduct, nor permit the juvenile court to intelligently determine if any of the conditions has been violated. The Court of Appeal modified the conditions to reference “materials depicting obscene matter as described in Penal Code section 311, subdivisions (a) and (b).”
A154412
- March 25, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Nahaniel Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Two of the minor’s probation conditions included words or phrases that made the conditions unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Specifically, the Court held that the term “sexually arousing materials” should be modified to “materials that are primarily intended to cause sexual arousal.” The Court further held that the prohibition of possession of material depicting nudity or containing “sexually explicit language” must be stricken because it is far broader than necessary or permissible.
A152332
- March 21, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Carol Chodroff
- Categories: Criminal, Discovery
The in camera Pitchess hearing, which the trial court conducted, did not conform with prescribed procedures. From the limited transcript of the in camera proceedings, the Court of Appeal could not tell whether the custodian of records brought all potentially responsive documents, and whether the juvenile court reviewed the potentially responsive documents or merely a summary. For that reason, the Court conditionally reversed the judgment of conviction.
A151556
- March 21, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Juliana Drous
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Appellant was convicted of five counts of making criminal threats with the use of a deadly weapon. The Court of Appeal found that her sentence for three of the criminal threats counts should have been stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, which precludes multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct. While the court noted that section 654 does not apply to violent crimes against multiple victims, the jury found not true the deadly weapon enhancement in connection with the burglary, rendering that conviction nonviolent.