The Court of Appeal ordered a stay of one of appellant’s sentences under PC 654. The 180-day sentence imposed for simple battery was based on the same act as another conviction (PC 269(a)(3)) for which 15-to-life was imposed.
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District.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.**
A167598
- March 30, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Geoff Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A169353
- March 27, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Deborah Hawkins
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal modified the judgment under PC 654 to stay appellant’s sentence for conspiracy to commit murder after the trial court imposed two concurrent sentences for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
A172030
- March 26, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Leslie Prince
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s conviction under PC 289(k)(1) for insufficient evidence and remanded for resentencing.
A172795
- March 25, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s order sustaining allegations of second-degree burglary and grand theft. The order was not supported by substantial evidence that appellant had the stolen property when he left the store where the theft occurred.
A174709
- March 23, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Michelle Danley
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
Father appealed the juvenile court’s disposition order bypassing him for reunification services under WIC 361.5(e)[incarceration]. The Department conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that the trial court’s denial of reunification services was not supported by substantial evidence. The juvenile court failed to consider several required factors and there was no evidence to support an implied finding. Instead, the juvenile court focused on whether services would be realistic rather than the proper inquiry of whether their provision would be detrimental to the child.
A170609
- March 13, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Aaron Schechter
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a full resentencing because the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it sentenced appellant under the Two Strikes law as an enhancement of the determinate base term. Because the Two Strikes law sets out an alternate penalty, not an additional term, “the trial court may either sentence the defendant under the penalty specified in the underlying statute or based on the Two Strikes law, but not both.”
A174187
- March 13, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a full resentencing under PC 1172.75, with directions to appoint counsel. The trial court, upon being notified by CDCR of appellant’s eligibility for resentencing, dismissed three years of enhancements but did not conduct a full resentencing. Appellant was also “not notified of the court’s intent to modify the judgment, was not appointed counsel, was not notified of any court proceedings related to modification of the judgment, and did not appear at any such proceedings.”
A169378
- March 12, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order because it erroneously considered the probation report during the contested hearing. The evidence at the hearing was “close” and “did not conclusively establish” appellant’s involvement in the underlying robbery, so the error was prejudicial.
A171622
- March 12, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Mark Goldrosen
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a new sentencing hearing because appellant presented sufficient proof of childhood trauma so as to trigger the lower-term presumption. The lower court made no findings that imposing the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, yet it imposed the middle term.
A172041
- March 12, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Richard Braucher
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal vacated an order directing appellant to pay restitution to the insurer of the victim, her employer. Because only a “direct victim” of a crime may receive restitution, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the insurer.