The probation condition authorizing police officers to search the minor’s electronic devices was unconstitutionally overbroad because, as phrased, it imposed no limit on the type of data subject to search. The court modified the probation condition so as to allow officers to only search text and voicemail messages, call logs, email and social media accounts, including any photographs or videos appended or attached to communications.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A154140
- February 28, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Jennifer Sheetz
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
A153191
- February 27, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Paul Couenhoven
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof, Sentencing
Aggregating the value of stolen property taken in two distinct transactions and charging the defendant with a single felony (as opposed to multiple misdemeanor counts) based on that value was improper in light of the receipt theory of liability elected by the People at trial. Matter remanded to the trial court to reduce the receiving stolen property (Pen. Code § 496, subd. (a)) conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor and for resentencing.
A154139
- February 27, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Nathan Siedman
- Categories: Credits, Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal found that the probation condition prohibiting appellant from having contact with a specific individual must be stricken because there was no basis in the record justifying its imposition. The Court further held that the probation condition prohibiting appellant from posting anything on the Internet that he wants certain named individuals to view was vague. Finally, the trial court was directed to specify the minor’s maximum term of confinement and calculate his pre-disposition credits.
A154013
- February 20, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Leah Spero
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
Court of Appeal found that the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing a jury during deliberations on aiding and abetting liability although no evidence supported this theory, failing to instruct on the elements that had to be proven under this liability theory, and denying defense counsel’s request to address the jury regarding the theory. Reversed on two grounds: (1) the trial court committed instructional error and (2) the trial court should have given the defense an opportunity to address the jury on the new aiding and abetting theory.
A151338
- February 6, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Dirck Newbury
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The trial court erred in imposing a concurrent two-year term for a firearm possession conviction instead of staying the term under Penal Code section 654 because the firearm possession was incidental to and not separate from the primary offense of murder. The matter was also remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to strike the firearm enhancement and to allow appellant to make a record for a further youth offender parole hearing.
A151384
- February 6, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Erin Keefe
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The probation condition prohibiting appellant from entering into a position of trust or authority with a minor unless under the authority and auspices of his school is unconstitutionally vague. Matter remanded for the trial court to modify or strike the condition.
A147787
- January 31, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: John Schuck
- Categories: Criminal, General
A jury convicted appellant of sexual penetration of a person prevented from resisting by an intoxicating substance (Penal Code § 289, subd. (e)), as well as simple battery (Penal Code § 242). The Court of Appeal reversed the simple battery conviction, finding it was a lesser included offense of the unlawful sexual penetration as defined by section 289, subd. (k)(1).
A155744
- January 31, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Jeremy Price
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The trial court improperly revoked appellant’s parole because he did not know his wife kept a gun in their bedroom closet. Although appellant was paroled with a weapons restriction, both parties agreed on appeal that the weapons restriction should have been construed to include a knowledge requirement. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment revoking appellant’s parole.
A153432
- January 22, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Elizabeth Eng
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, General
The Court of Appeal reversed a receiving stolen property charge, finding that a criminal defendant (even those involved in a juvenile adjudication) cannot be convicted of both carjacking and receiving stolen property, or of robbery and receiving stolen property, when the same property underlies both offenses.
A151650
- January 17, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jamie Weyand
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Because the attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) at issue in this case comprised an indivisible transaction in which appellant had a single intent and objective, the trial court’s imposition of concurrent sentences for these offenses violated Penal Code section 654, which prohibits multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct. The Court of Appeal, therefore, stayed the criminal threats sentence.