Two Archives - First District Appellate Project

[Published Decision] The Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating jurisdiction over appellant, a nonminor dependent. The Court found that the juvenile court failed to give any consideration to whether termination of dependency was in his best interests.

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to PC 1170, which requires imposition of the middle term in the absence of appropriate findings regarding aggravating factors. The Court further held that remand was necessary under the two-part test identified in People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5ht 459.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to consult experts, put on expert testimony regarding eyewitness identifications and the limited illumination produced by firearm “muzzle flashes,” and failing to request a standard jury instruction concerning the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Court of Appeal held that, in light of three declarations submitted with the petition (from trial counsel, a firearms expert, and a psychologist/perception expert on eyewitness identifications), an evidentiary hearing was necessary to dispose of petitioner’s claims.

In this case, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term in excess of that which was negotiated in his original plea agreement after he violated his Cruz waiver. The Court of Appeal remanded, finding that the Cruz waiver was invalid because it was obtained three months after appellant’s plea (and not at the time of his plea). Upon remand, the Court ordered the trial court to either give appellant the opportunity to withdraw his plea (if the court decides to impose a sentence in excess of the plea agreement), or resentence him in accordance with the original plea bargain.

The Court of Appeal modified the probation condition requiring appellant to comply with an individualized substance abuse treatment plan as ordered by the probation department to clarify that his substance abuse treatment was to be on an outpatient basis. The Court further held that the judgment should be clarified to indicate that the restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4(b) was stayed based on appellant’s inability to pay under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.

In light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying appellant’s resentencing petition, concluding that appellant had adequately pleaded a prima facie case for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 and that nothing in the record of conviction conclusively refuted the pleaded allegations

The Court of Appeal held that the case must again be remanded because the trial court erroneously believed the law required consecutive 25 years to life terms on two forgery counts, when in actuality section 667(c)(6) give trial courts discretion to impose concurrent sentences where, as here, the offenses arise from the same set of operative facts. Upon remand, the Court directed the trial court to also recalculate appellant’s post-sentence custody credits pursuant to People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23.

The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s sentence for receiving the stolen catalytic converter (Pen. Code, § 496(a)) should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654 because there was no evidence that he had a different intent or objective in receiving the stolen catalytic converter than he did in stealing it. The court also vacated the $50 fee imposed pursuant former Penal Code section 987.5(a) in light of AB 1869.

In light of People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 and People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by summarily denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) without appointing him counsel.