Latest First District Victories
A155677
December 9, 2019
Attorney: Nathaniel Miller
Categories: Criminal Fourth Amendment
In reviewing the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, the Court of Appeal found that while the circumstances of the case may have supported a detention, they did not, either singularly or collectively, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that appellant was armed or dangerous. Here, appellant matched the description of a cell phone theft suspect, “appeared nervous” when speaking to the officer, “deceptively answered” the officer’s question, was wearing baggy clothing, and had a “relatively heavy” backpack. The Court of Appeal remanded the case and instructed the juvenile court to vacate its order denying the suppression motion, enter a new order granting the motion, and allow the minor to withdraw his plea.
A155561
November 25, 2019
Attorney: Randall Conner
Categories: Delinquency Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
In light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, the court remanded the case to the juvenile court with instructions to strike the electronics search condition and, if appropriate, to recraft it more narrowly consistent with Supreme Court’s ruling.
A155725
November 22, 2019
Attorney: Audrey Chavez
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s one-year prison term enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b) must be stricken in light of Senate Bill No. 136. Effective January 1, 2020, amended section 667.5, subd.(b) imposes that additional one-year term only for a prior prison term served for a sexually violent offense, which was not the case for appellant.
A155156
October 28, 2019
Attorney: David Polsky
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike the 5-year prior serious felony enhancement (PC sec. 667, subd. (a)(1)).
A155127
October 21, 2019
Attorney: Jennifer Sheetz
Categories: Delinquency Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal concluded the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an electronic search condition, but the condition must be narrowed on remand.
A155281
October 21, 2019
Attorney: Eric Larson
Categories: Criminal Sufficiency of the Evidence
A jury found the defendant guilty of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a)), among other offenses. However, the Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence proved that the charged offense occurred on or after the statute’s effective date and therefore reversed the conviction.
A155552
October 15, 2019
Attorney: Leila Moncharsh
Categories: Criminal Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck the electronic search condition, but remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether a narrower condition would comport with In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113.
A155082
September 25, 2019
Attorney: Nathaniel Miller
Categories: Delinquency Sentencing
The Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that the minor committed a battery against a police officer (PC sec. 242) or that he resisted arrest (PC sec. 148, subd. (a)(1)). As to the battery, the court found that the minor’s contact with the officer was incidental to his attempt to move away from the officer’s hand, and that the contact was neither willful nor harmful or offensive (two required elements of battery). As for the resisting arrest charge, the court found that the officer was not enforcing any disciplinary rules in his encounter with the minor, that the officer had only requested (not ordered) the minor to follow instructions, and that insufficient evidence supported that the minor knew or reasonably should have know that the officer was engaged in the performance of his duties when he grabbed the minor’s arm.
A154923
September 20, 2019
Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
Categories: Delinquency Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Although the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to impose an electronic search condition, it found the condition imposed swept too broadly, and so remand for the juvenile court to consider imposing a narrower search condition.
A155022
August 28, 2019
Attorney: Bobbie Stein
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded to the trial court with directions to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike appellant’s five-year prior serious felony enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
