The Court of Appeal struck the two 5-year sentence enhancements imposed under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a) because they were not pled in the first amended complaint.

The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s admission to two prior strike convictions was invalid because the record does not reflect that appellant was informed of or expressly waived his constitutional rights to trial by jury and confrontation, and his privilege not to incriminate himself. The Court therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for correction of that error.

The Court of Appeal held that several counts of rape must be reversed because California lacked jurisdiction over those crimes since they occurred in a different state. Penal Code section 778a, subdivision (a) confers jurisdiction over crimes committed outside California only “if the defendant formed the requisite intent within this state and committed any act, including preparatory acts, showing that the crimes were initiated within California.” In this case, the court found that the rapes were “commenced” and completed in another state. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the A.G.’s argument that the rapes furthered the human trafficking enterprise that, which originated in California.

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.

The trial court erred in imposing a consecutive term of 25 years to life under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d), because a subdivision (d) enhancement was never pled in the information, and the jury did not find true such an allegation. The Court of Appeal, therefore, ordered that the case be remanded so the trial court may decide whether to exercise its discretion to strike the enhancements under section 12022.53. If the trial court chooses not to strike the enhancement altogether, it must impose a determinate term of 20 years under subdivision (c).

Under People v. Gallardo, the trial court violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights by relying on an ambiguous record of his Nevada convictions in order to find true the prior strike allegations against appellant. Like in Gallardo, the proper remedy was to remand the case.

Court of Appeal reversed misdemeanor conviction for recent use of a controlled substance where it was barred by one year statute of limitations and reversed all fines and fees associated with that count.