The Court of Appeal independently reviewed subpoenaed law enforcement records and found no error in withholding them, affirmed the judgment, and ordered a limited remand for further corrections to Baugh’s probation report.
The Sixth District affirmed Jose Gutierrez’s judgment after an independent Wende review uncovered no arguable issue, while ordering his abstract of judgment corrected to reflect the omitted concurrent 15-years-to-life sentence on count 8.
The Court of Appeal affirmed a first degree robbery conviction, holding that a magistrate’s legal conclusion about evidence sufficiency at a preliminary hearing did not preclude the prosecution from recharging the offense, and that elevating the robbery count from second to first degree during
The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the defendants’ convictions after finding that the prosecutor’s voir dire pit bull analogy and predator-prey arguments violated the Racial Justice Act’s ban on language that implicitly appeals to racial bias by comparing defendants to ani
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ciceu’s Romero motion to strike his 2003 prior strike and that rule 4.420 did not prohibit the dual consideration of aggravating factors.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a resentencing judgment, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss two prior serious felony enhancements under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c), while directing correction of the abstract of judgment to strike a $
California’s Second District Court of Appeal, Division Five, affirmed Ricardo Martinez’s second-degree murder conviction, finding substantial evidence of malice and no instructional error, but remanded to delete a $300 restitution fine and a $300 parole revocation fine from the abstract
In an unpublished opinion, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s restitution order, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing $525,000 in noneconomic restitution for three child sexual abuse victims under the shocks-the-conscience standard.
The Court of Appeal reversed an uncharged five-year serious felony enhancement, vacated Joshua Aleman’s sentence, and ordered a full resentencing because the late notice deprived him of a fair opportunity to make plea and trial decisions.
The Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed Stephon Blakely’s convictions for murder and other offenses after appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief and the court’s independent review under People v. Kelly found no arguable issues.
California’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Juan Alejandro Ramirez’s convictions and 180-year sentence, holding that CSAAS expert testimony was properly admitted, CALCRIM No. 1193 correctly instructed the jury, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing upper-t
The Court of Appeal modified its prior nonpublished opinion by replacing the page 12 sentence about Goldsmith’s schizoaffective-disorder diagnosis, stated there is no change in the judgment, and denied the petition for rehearing.
The Court of Appeal reversed Willis’s count 1 conviction because registering as a transient did not establish a residence separate from the Lakeside address, while affirming the judgment in all other respects.
The Third District Court of Appeal held that a trial court resentencing a defendant under Penal Code section 1172.75 may reimpose an upper term under subdivision (d)(4) without the aggravating factors being stipulated to or found true by a jury—the trial court here had separately found true beyond a
The Court of Appeal held that Welfare and Institutions Code section 875 does not authorize multiple concurrent baseline terms and remanded for imposition of a single baseline term and recalculation of D.G.’s precommitment credits, while otherwise affirming the judgment.
The Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reversed the trial court’s order finding Raymond Archuleta ineligible for resentencing and remanded for a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 because his prison prior enhancements were imposed even though their punishment was
The Third District reversed both transfers. Although juvenile-court jurisdiction can continue after age 18, the Legislature used “minor” deliberately in section 750. Once C.M. became an adult, his residence could not automatically be derived from his parents’ residence. The transfer courts therefore
The Fourth District reversed. Section 11358(d) states that qualifying cultivation conduct is punishable by imprisonment under Penal Code section 1170(h). Section 1170(h)(4), in turn, expressly provides that nothing in that subdivision prevents a court from granting probation or suspending sentence,
The Second District reversed and ordered suppression. An inventory search must be tied to a legitimate caretaking purpose, such as protecting property, protecting police from claims, or removing a vehicle that threatens traffic or public safety. It cannot be used as a substitute for probable cause w
The Sixth District ordered cell-location evidence suppressed because an armed carjacking investigation did not establish a case-specific emergency excusing a warrant.
The Court of Appeal held that prosecutors forfeited their objection to a renewed Romero motion and upheld dismissal of a prior strike.
The Second District held that a juvenile’s assault offense was not expressly within the statutory list barring dismissal and record sealing after probation.