The Court of Appeal held that appellants’ convictions for active participation in a criminal street gang and related enhancements must be reversed and vacated based on AB 333’s amendments to PC 186.22. The Court further held that the trial court must reduce appellants’ conspiracy to commit murder sentences to 25 years to life because “[t]he punishment for conspiracy to commit murder is the same as for first degree murder, but the special circumstances in [PC] 190.2 do not apply to conspiracy to commit murder.” On remand, the Court also directed the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to stay appellants’ sentences on their murder or conspiracy terms pursuant to amended PC 654.
A161098
- July 25, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Alan Siraco
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
A163105
- July 25, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Joseph Shipp
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that appellants’ gang enhancements must be reversed and vacated based on AB 333’s amendments to PC 186.22. Upon remand, the prosecutor can elect whether to retry the enhancements under the amended law. The Court further held that the case must be remanded so that the trial court can decide whether to exercise its discretion to strike the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement pursuant to section 1385 or consider imposing a lesser enhancement in accordance with People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688.
A166851
- July 21, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Amy Grigsby
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
In a WIC 366.26 appeal, mother argued the Department did not fully comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the ICWA. The Department conceded the error. The Department’s reports did not indicate whether the minor’s extended family members and “others who have an interest in the child” had been interviewed as required under WIC 224.2(b) and Rule 5.481(a)(5). Consequently, the ICWA notices did not contain statutorily required information. The matter was conditionally reversed and remanded.
A165130
- July 19, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Cynthia Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
Upon resentencing after remand, the trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to conduct a full resentencing of appellant based on the terms of the remittitur. The Court of Appeal remanded again, holding that “a remand for resentencing as to part of a sentence [which was directed here] necessarily re-opens the entire sentence for full resentencing.” The Court further explained that it’s prior opinion regarding appellant’s constitutional claim of indigency was not limited to the restitution fine, as the trial court interpreted, and directed that appellant receive another ability to pay hearing with regards to the remaining fines and fees.
A166708
- July 17, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Mark Johnson
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by summarily denying appellant’s PC 1172.6 petition. The Court found that the trial court erred by determining appellant’s eligibility for relief based on the original information rather than the amended information filed on the day of appellant’s plea. “[A]n amended information supersedes the original pleading, which has no further effect.”
A166550
- July 11, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: William Farber
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In this case, the trial court accepted a plea agreement that specified a three-year term of probation, but then sentenced appellant to four years’ probation. The Court of Appeal held that, once the trial court accepted the terms of the negotiated plea, it lacked jurisdiction to alter them. In so holding, the court rejected that the issue had be forfeited due to trial counsel’s failure to object, finding this to be an unauthorized sentence.
A166718
- July 10, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: David Polsky
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by summarily denying appellant’s PC 1172.6 petition for resentence on the grounds that it had already denied his previous petition under former PC 1170.95. The Court explained that the pervious petition was denied without prejudice, at appellant’s counsel’s request, and the Court of Appeal’s opinion affirming that denial did not foreclose appellant from filing another petition.
A164649
- July 7, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Christopher Stansell
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
[Published Opinion] Agreeing with People v. Canedos (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 469 (and disagreeing with People v. Faial (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 738), the Court of Appeal held that where a defendant was found to have committed a probation violation more than two years after being placed on probation, but before AB 1950 took effect, AB 1950’s amendments to PC 1203.1 apply retroactively to terminate the defendant’s probation prior to the violation. The court reversed the order revoking and terminating defendant’s probation.
A161875
- July 5, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Megan Hailey-Dunsheath
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due to the recent statutory amendments to Penal Code section 654, which now affords trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment (instead of having to choose the one that provided for the longest potential term of imprisonment).
A165002
- June 30, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Richard Braucher
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal stuck an electronics search condition, finding that it was too broad under In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 and In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156. The court reasoned that the condition was too broad because it was imposed to ensure general compliance with the minor’s other probation terms, but it failed to specify which of the other terms exactly.