The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider appellant’s sentence in light of two amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term where the defendant was a youth or experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.
A158809
- March 28, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Lauren Dodge
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A161306
- March 28, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Alex Green
- Categories: Criminal, General, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that appellant was deprived of his constitutional and statutory right to be present at his resentencing hearing where defense counsel merely told the court that appellant was not present and made no representation that appellant knew he had a right to be present or that he voluntarily waived that right. The Court further found that the error was not harmless, despite the fact that appellant bargained for a specified sentence and received the benefit of his bargain.
A160734
- March 28, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Eric Multhaup
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In this appeal from the denial of appellant’s Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider the evidence appellant sought to present at the evidentiary hearing (a codefendant’s declaration against penal interest) because, under section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3), appellant had a statutory right to offer “new or additional evidence.” While trial courts may properly exclude evidence if it is not admissible under the Evidence Code, here, the trial court failed to adequately analyze whether the evidence was sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible; rather, the trial court questioned the credibility of the evidence solely on the fact that it had not been offered at trial. Additionally, because section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill 775, now provides resentencing relief for individuals convicted of attempted murder under certain circumstances, the court vacated the court’s order denying appellant’s resentencing petition and remanded for further proceedings.
A158267
- March 25, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Marylou Hillberg
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Because section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill 775, now provides resentencing relief for individuals convicted of attempted murder under certain circumstances, the Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s order denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition and remanded the matter for the court to reconsider the petition in light of SB 775.
A162591
- March 24, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Deborah Rodriguez
- Categories: Criminal, Fourth Amendment
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal affirms the trial court’s suppression of evidence of a firearm found on appellant when he was patted down during a traffic stop, finding that the officer’s pat search was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The court explains that neither “knowledge of a suspect’s past arrests or convictions” nor “knowledge that a suspect is merely under investigation” is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.
A160385
- March 23, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Kevin Lindsley
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s sentence, and remanded the matter for a full resentencing consistent with Assembly Bill 518, which now affords trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment, and other sentencing laws effective January 1, 2022, including Senate Bill 567 and Assembly Bill 124.
A159421
- March 23, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Geoff Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due to the recent statutory amendment to Penal Code section 654 (Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which now affords trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment (instead of having to choose the one that provided for the longest potential term of imprisonment). Upon remand, the Court explained that the trial court may consider the applicability of other new legislation.
A158498
- March 23, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Peter Goldscheider
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due to the recent statutory amendments to: (1) Penal Code section 654, which now affords trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment (instead of having to choose the one that provided for the longest potential term of imprisonment); (2) Penal Code section 1170, which now includes a presumption in favor of a low prison term where the defendant was a youth or experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense; and (3) Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), which now only applies to individuals who have served a prior sentence for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b).
A161204
- March 23, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Roberta Simon
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869, the Court of Appeal vacated the portion of appellant’s judgment imposing the probation investigation fee, monthly probation supervision fee, monthly drug testing fee, and supplemental probation report fee imposed under former Penal Code section 1203.1b. Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 177, the Court further vacated the installment payment fee (Penal Code, § 1205) and the collection fee (Penal Code, § 1203.1b, subd. (h).) Finally, the Court held that the probation order should be modified to reflect the restitution fines were suspended rather than imposed.
A162558
- March 22, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Anya Emerson
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s order at the WIC 366.26 hearing terminating mother’s parental rights and remanded the matter for a new hearing. The Court found the juvenile court relied on certain factors that In re Caden C. made clear are not relevant to the application of the beneficial relationship exception.