The Ninth Circuit reversed Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem’s conviction for conspiring to provide material support to ISIS, holding that evidence of ideological sympathy and independent violence inspired by a terrorist group’s propaganda cannot sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B witho
The Ninth Circuit vacated a certificate of appealability because its certified question presented no constitutional issue and could provide no effectual relief, declined to expand it to the Double Jeopardy claim, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem’s convictions for conspiracy to transport firearms in interstate commerce and related charges, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings, sufficiency, Brady claims, sealed filings, and jury instructions, while reversing Count Five in a sepa
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Mark Ridley-Thomas’s convictions, holding that routing $100,000 through USC to benefit his son’s nonprofit was a thing of value supporting honest-services fraud and federal-program bribery.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed a parole revocation order because the prosecution presented no evidence that Kenneth Adrian Fuller was actually on parole when the alleged violation occurred, holding that parole status must be proven even if the defendant never raises the issue before the
After an independent review of the record, the Sixth District Court of Appeal struck a $300 sex offender fine and $930 in related penalty assessments because the trial court had found the defendant unable to pay, but otherwise affirmed his 18-year prison sentence.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a Romero motion to dismiss prior strikes during resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, finding no abuse of discretion given the defendant’s extensive criminal history.
The Court of Appeal affirmed an order suspending execution of sentence and granting probation after a jury convicted Earl Lamont Rogers of domestic violence offenses, holding that he forfeited his challenge to the admission of a prior threatening phone call by failing to object on the specific groun
The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of Ricardo Flores’s motion to vacate his conviction because the trial court wrongly required proof of removal or deportation and failed to recognize that denial of an immigration-benefit application can satisfy section 1473.7.
The Court of Appeal affirmed Jessie Cornejo Ambriz’s convictions and seven-year, four-month prison sentence, concluding that his statement during a prolonged strangulation and suffocation attack supported a criminal-threat conviction and that the sole trial error was harmless.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a defendant’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea, holding the trial court properly conducted a Marsden hearing and was not required to appoint substitute counsel to investigate the withdrawal motion.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary denial of a resentencing petition because the record conclusively established the defendant was the actual killer, rendering him ineligible for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.
The Court of Appeal held that a jury’s not true finding on a personal firearm use enhancement does not preclude a trial court from later finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was the actual killer for purposes of Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed a four-year negotiated sentence, holding that although the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to include a Marin County sentence in the aggregate term, Russell was estopped from challenging the unauthorized sentence because she received the b
The Court of Appeal affirmed Sandra Garcia’s convictions for conspiracy to commit kidnapping, sexual penetration by force, kidnapping a child under 14, torture, and dissuading a witness, rejecting her claims of Sixth Amendment violations, instructional error, insufficient evidence, and an exce
The Fifth District upheld three child-sex convictions because explicit bathtub photographs permitted a reasonable inference supporting the corpus delicti, rejected constitutional challenges to the indeterminate sentences, and vacated unauthorized concurrent terms on 14 other counts.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered judgment granting Mario Alberto Delgadillo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed Christopher Hawkins’s pro se habeas petition without prejudice because he failed to pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status, named improper respondents, and did not use the court-approved form.
The court granted Vital Grasshopper Cove LLC’s petition for declaratory judgment, found the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser reasonably without cause to believe the property was subject to forfeiture, amended the prior criminal forfeiture order, and divested the United States of any rights
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Luis Alberto Alarcon Nava’s habeas petition because it was an unauthorized successive challenge to his 2012 Kern County judgment and its Racial Justice Act and related counsel claims did not state cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief.
A federal magistrate judge ordered a California prisoner to show cause why his habeas petition should not be dismissed because he had not exhausted state remedies and because the Younger abstention doctrine bars federal interference in his ongoing state criminal cases.
After California’s Governor announced commutation of all death sentences to life without parole, the federal district court in this death penalty habeas case directed the parties to confer and file a joint status report addressing the impact on the pending petition and on counsel’s appoi
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Eriberto Reyna’s motion to vacate his 1993 murder conviction after independently reviewing the record under People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded so the defendant could decide whether to waive or invoke the new protections of amended Penal Code section 1170, following the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729.