Fourth District grants writ of mandate disqualifying a judge from presiding over a California Racial Justice Act hearing because her prior service as a homicide prosecutor in the same District Attorney’s Office whose charging practices are under review created an appearance of bias.
Fourth District reverses conviction where the trial court forced the defendant to choose between asserting a valid entrapment defense and admission of decades-old sexual misconduct evidence from his teenage years, holding that the conditioning violated his constitutional right to present a defense.
First District holds that placement in a family member’s home with community-based programming and supervision can qualify as a “less restrictive program” under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875(f), even though the appeal was dismissed as moot after the youth was placed wit
Fourth District reverses convictions in sexual assault case where the trial court failed to recognize that a peremptory challenge based on a juror’s nursing occupation was presumptively invalid under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, holding that defense counsel’s failure to specifi
Fourth District holds that a court correcting a clerical error in an abstract of judgment is not required to conduct full resentencing or hear Romero motions, but exceeded its authority by modifying the underlying misdemeanor sentences during the correction process.
Fourth District affirms forcible rape and related convictions but holds that stayed sentences based on unused One Strike circumstances and the Habitual Sexual Offender law are unauthorized when the defendant is already sentenced under the One Strike law and Three Strikes law for the same offense.
Second District holds that a jury’s not-true findings on personal firearm use and a robbery special circumstance do not collaterally estop a resentencing court from finding the defendant was the actual killer in a Penal Code section 1172.6 hearing, applying People v. Santamaria and joining Peo
The California Supreme Court reverses Omar Deen’s capital conviction and death sentence because the trial court failed to adequately examine whether a juror who had a personal connection to the murdered police chief harbored actual bias.
Second District grants habeas petition vacating murder conviction where prosecutor failed to correct false eyewitness testimony about prior police identifications and defense counsel failed to impeach with the witnesses’ actual statements, applying the Supreme Court’s recent Glossip v. O
First District holds that the term ‘receives’ in Penal Code section 32310(a) requires more than mere possession of a large-capacity magazine, and reverses a felony conviction supported only by evidence that the defendant possessed the magazine in his car.
First District holds, with one justice dissenting, that a defendant forfeited his Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) low term presumption claim by failing to raise it at sentencing despite submitting evidence of childhood trauma.
First District holds that a juvenile court may consider a victim impact statement at a six-month baseline review hearing if it limits its consideration to material relevant to the juvenile’s rehabilitation.
Sixth District holds that the probation department, not the trial court, decides eligibility for Penal Code section 1000.7’s young adult deferred entry of judgment pilot program and rejects separation of powers and abuse of discretion challenges to a denial based on out-of-county residence.
Fourth District grants Penal Code section 1473.7 relief where defense counsel failed to recognize and pursue an immigration-safe plea after Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Lynch opened the door to one.
Fourth District holds that Penal Code section 29820’s firearm prohibition for certain juvenile wards until age 30 is facially constitutional under both the Second Amendment Bruen framework and the Due Process Clause.
Fifth District holds that Penal Code section 292’s definitions of ‘acts of violence’ and ‘great bodily harm’ are constitutional under California Constitution article I, section 12, and that a no-bail order in a serious child sexual abuse case was supported by clear and
Fifth District holds that the mere presence of peace officers attempting a routine traffic stop is not the ‘objective correlate’ required to support an imperfect self-defense instruction for a defendant whose only basis for self-defense was a delusion.
First District holds that the DMV’s revised hearing structure satisfies due process and rejects the broader ‘appearance of bias’ approach used in Romane v. DMV (now before the California Supreme Court).
Second District reverses first and second degree murder convictions because the trial court abused its discretion in excluding under Evidence Code section 352 a contemporaneous handwritten note relevant to the defendant’s provocation defense.
Second District holds that under Penal Code section 1237.1 a trial court retains jurisdiction during a pending appeal to correct presentence custody credit errors, and modifies the judgment to award two additional days of credit.
Fourth District holds that police violated the Fourth Amendment by ordering a man out of a residence at gunpoint without a warrant or probable cause and rejects the contrary 1985 Trudell decision.
Sixth District holds that impounding a suspended-license driver’s minivan solely to prevent further illegal driving violates the Fourth Amendment community caretaking doctrine and orders suppression of evidence from the resulting inventory search.
Fourth District holds that an Apple Pay account is a ‘financial account’ excluded from warrantless probation searches and orders suppression of bank evidence obtained through a warrant relying on the unlawful search.
Second District holds that a defendant in custody in another county did not willfully fail to appear for sentencing and that uncertified records from a Fresno court were inadmissible to prove a Cruz waiver violation.