The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because the One Strike law does not apply to attempt crimes, and so appellant’s 25-to-life sentence was unauthorized under PC 667.61. The trial court also erred by imposing a consecutive sentence under PC 667.6(d)(2) because appellant was not convicted of more than one enumerated sex offense, which meant the statutory provision was inapplicable.
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District.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.**
A170260
- June 6, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Walter Pyle
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A171123
- June 4, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal modified two of appellant’s probation conditions and stuck another condition. First, the court found that the condition requiring appellant to “maintain satisfactory grades” was unconstitutionally vague, so it modified the condition to: “maintain passing grades (meaning not failing, such as a D or above in an A through F grading system) in each graded subject.” Second, the court modified a condition to require appellant’s parents to participate in counseling with him pursuant to WIC 729.2. Third, the court struck a $100 restitution fine because WIC 730.6 prohibited the juvenile court from imposing a separate restitution fine.
A163607
- May 30, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Marc Zilversmit
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s sentence, which included a 25-year upper term firearm enhancement. The court held that since PC 1170(b) applies retroactively, the trial court must apply the presumption of a lower term where youth is a contributing factor, and the court noted that appellant was 21 at the time of the offense. The court also stated that the trial court imposed the upper term without the requisite stipulation or jury finding on two counts.
A165436
- May 29, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Megan Hailey-Dunsheath
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal struck appellant’s great bodily injury enhancement because it cannot apply to murder and the improper gun-use enhancement because firearm use was an element of the offense. The court also directed the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the appropriate, reduced fines and fees.
A168918
- May 29, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Joseph Doyle
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed a $10,000 restitution fine, determining that there was error for failing to assess appellant’s ability to pay and for violating the rule barring one superior court judge from overruling another’s lawful ruling. The court also vacated its prior opinion, held there was jurisdiction for PC 1172.75 resentencing because CDCR had properly notified the court of eligibility, and affirmed the striking of prison priors and a firearm enhancement.
A170918
- May 22, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Erin Keefe
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court order denying appellant’s postconviction petitions to access juvenile records pursuant to WIC 827. The court found that the juvenile court erred by denying the petitions without conducting an in camera review of these records for Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence. Appellant’s WIC 827 petitions alleged facts sufficient to establish that the records may contain information that discredits the key prosecution witness and weakens the prosecution’s theory.
A171482
- May 12, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Owen Martikan
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it ordered three consecutive periods of confinement for appellant’s violations of his PRCS conditions. PC 669 and PC 3455 do not authorize a court to impose consecutive custodial terms because PRCS violations are distinct from criminal convictions, so there was no basis for consecutive terms. Consequently, the court modified the order for the three periods of confinement to be served concurrently.
A169978
- May 7, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Sandra Gillies
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
After a resentencing order, the Court of Appeal remanded because the trial court failed to consider whether PC 1170(b)(6) requires it to impose the low term based on appellant’s childhood trauma. This issue was not forfeited because there is a low term presumption when the record reflects that trauma contributed to commission of the offense, so a specific request is not required.
A169042
- May 7, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jennifer Mannix
- Categories: Criminal
The Court of Appeal reversed a first-degree murder conviction because the trial court erroneously admitted evidence that appellant attacked another inmate – an uncharged offense – while in jail awaiting trial. When a defendant claims self-defense, evidence of conduct on the day of the offense does not constitute character evidence. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the attack as evidence of the defendant’s violent character because the defendant had not opened the door to character evidence.
A170581
- May 6, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Leah Spero
- Categories: Criminal, Habeas
The Court of Appeal granted habeas relief and reversed the misdemeanor conviction for possession of a nonserialized handgun under PC 29180 because it was not a crime at the time of the arrest. The court also struck and remanded for the trial court to consider a narrower electronic search condition, eliminated the requirement that appellant pay for therapy or education, and remanded for clarification on permitted medical cannabis use.