resources image
FDAP Victories
 Filter by Category

 Or, Search by Keyword

 Currently Displaying:

  • Category: All
  • Entries: 1 - 5 of 1770

> click here for tips on using this database and access to pre March 2005 victories

People v. Monckton, A147219 (Div. Three)
category/ies: Attorneys Fees
date posted: 2017-07-17
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Mark D. Johnson
FDAP buddy: Brad O'Connell

Court reversed order for defendant to pay $250 for defense costs for representation. The defendant himself objected to the fee and court found that the record was insufficient to support a finding of ability to pay where the defendant was sentenced to two years in prison.

People v. Gonzalez, A145857 (Div. 4)
category/ies: Statute of Limitations
date posted: 2017-07-05
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Donald Bergerson, Peggy Headley
FDAP buddy:

Court 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.

People v. Wittrock, A146706 (Div. Two)
category/ies: Instructional Error
date posted: 2017-06-14
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: David Stanley
FDAP buddy: Stephanie Clarke

Remanded for new sentencing hearing and reversed true one-strike (667.71) findings where court sent the jury back to deliberate further after it returned not true findings because those findings seeming logically inconsistent with the verdict. Pursuant to PC section 1161, the court may instruct where the jury appears to have mistaken the law. However, section 1161 distinguishes between a verdict of conviction and a verdict of acquittal. Where there is a verdict of acquittal the court “cannot require the jury to reconsider it.”

People v. Dang, A145085 (Div. Four)
date posted: 2017-04-19
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Mary Pougiales
FDAP buddy: Richard Such

The Court of Appeal reversed conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia in prison because the trial court ordered him visibly shackled throughout trial in front of the jury due to the absence of manifest need. Although appellant had not been involved in any violent conduct in the past four years and there was no evidence that he posed a flight risk, the trial court relied on the underlying circumstances of prior violent offense from eight years earlier and prior violent conduct in prison more than four years earlier. The Court of Appeal concluded the unjustified shackling was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v. Alhambra, A147665 (Div. 5)
category/ies: Sentencing Error, One Strike, Section 654, Ex Post Facto
date posted: 2017-03-14
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Jeffrey Kross
FDAP buddy:

Remand for sentencing errors: 1) Imposition of both determinate and indeterminate one-strike sentences on same counts (court should strike determinate terms); 2) Imposition of 25 years to life for crimes that at the time they were committed had maximum 15 years to life sentence, violating protection against ex post facto laws, and 3) 654 violation for failure to stay the sentence for count based on same conduct as another count.


Copyright © 2018 First District Appellate Project. All rights reserved