The Court of Appeal struck a $300 restitution fine imposed on appellant, a minor, as a condition of probation. Under WIC 730.6(a)(2), the court could not require both direct victim restitution and a separate, punitive restitution fine.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A172292
- February 20, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
- Categories: Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
A170342
- February 20, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Christina Alvarez
- Categories: Criminal, Right to Counsel, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because the trial court relied on facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt when it found, as an aggravating circumstance, that the underlying crime involved great violence and great bodily harm. The Court also remanded for reconsideration of appellant’s Marsden motion, as the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether defense counsel had adequately prepared for sentencing.
A171788
- February 19, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Kaiya Pirolo
- Categories: Civil Commitment
The Court of Appeal reversed an order recommitting appellant to DSH because the record did not show that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. While appellant had sometimes indicated his desire to avoid a trial generally, the record did not affirmatively establish that he understood the court’s explanation of the differences between a bench trial and jury trial.
A173769
- February 3, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Leslie Barry
- Categories: Dependency, General, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
Father appealed the denial of his request for presumed father status, denial of his WIC 388 petition, and termination of his parental rights. The Court of Appeal agreed that the juvenile court did not conduct a proper paternity inquiry and did not receive the required notice or counsel to which he was entitled. In addition, the juvenile court erred by not finding father to be the minor’s presumed father. These errors were prejudicial. The order terminating parental rights was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
A172792
- January 27, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Erin Welsh Keefe
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck a “broad-ranging” electronics search condition as invalid under Ricardo P. The condition, which included searches of any communication likely to reveal whether appellant was complying with his probation terms, burdened appellant’s privacy “in a manner substantially disproportionate” to the government interest in monitoring his compliance.
A168883 & A168655
- January 14, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Mark Greenberg, Cynthia Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In these consolidated co-defendant cases, the Court of Appeal remanded because the sentencing was legally flawed, unclear, and reflected unauthorized sentences. The Court of Appeal had doubt that the trial court exercised informed discretion, requiring vacatur of both sentences and a full resentencing.
A172545
- December 30, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Leslie Prince
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court for full resentencing under PC 1172.75. The trial court erred in imposing the 5-year upper term for each of two gun enhancements under PC 12022.5. The trial court was limited to imposing no more than the current 4-year midterm for each enhancement because the court did not identify any aggravating factors to justify imposing the upper term. Upon resentencing, the trial court must thoroughly consider the significant evidence of appellant’s rehabilitation and positive performance in prison.
A171942
- December 29, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Micah Reyner
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with respect to a deadly weapon enhancement attached to one count of attempted carjacking. The trial court committed alternative theory error by instructing the jury that it could find the deadly weapon enhancement to be true if the knife was either “inherently deadly or dangerous or . . . used in such a way that [was] capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury.”
A172397
- December 19, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Courtney Reed
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
The Court of Appeal remanded for recalculation of appellant’s presentence credits pursuant to PC 4019, as the trial court had only awarded him custody credits.
A170482
- December 17, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Peter Goldscheider
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof
The Court of Appeal vacated two of three convictions for possessing a destructive device. The convictions were “for the same offense based on the same act” and therefore merged under PC 954.