California Case Summaries
Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided):
Coverage since January 2, 2026

California

5th District Court of Appeal
Uncategorized

People v. Gonzalez — Trial Court Properly Used Aggravating Factors Tied to Prior Convictions for Upper-Term Sentence; Strike Vacated After Fletcher

Fifth District holds (on transfer from the California Supreme Court) that trial courts may impose upper-term sentences based on California Rules of Court rule 4.421(b) factors derived from prior convictions, but vacates the prior-strike finding under People v. Fletcher.

4th District Court of Appeal, Division One
Uncategorized

In re Christian V. — Amended Juvenile Restitution Statute Did Not Apply Retroactively Where Minor’s Case Became Final Before the Effective Date

Fourth District affirms a juvenile court’s joint-and-several restitution order, holding the January 2025 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 — which replaced joint-and-several liability with several liability based on percentage of fault — does not apply retroactively to a

2nd District Court of Appeal, Division One
Uncategorized

In re Lynex — Racial Justice Act Petitioner Entitled to Counsel on a ‘Plausible Allegation’ Standard, Not a Prima Facie Showing

Second District grants writ of mandate, holding that an indigent petitioner under California’s Racial Justice Act must show only a ‘plausible allegation’ of a violation to obtain counsel — not a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief — and may amend his petition to meet that

4th District Court of Appeal, Division Two
Uncategorized

People v. T.B. — ‘Less Onerous Alternatives’ to Court-Ordered ECT Means Medical Alternatives, Not Surrogate-Consent Procedures

Fourth District affirms a trial court order authorizing electroconvulsive therapy for an incarcerated patient with treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder, holding that ‘no less onerous alternatives’ under Penal Code section 2679(b) refers to medical alternatives, not surrogate-cons

4th District Court of Appeal, Division Two
Uncategorized

Flareau v. Superior Court — Trial Court Abused ‘Residual’ Discretion to Deny Mental-Health Diversion Without Proper Analysis

Fourth District grants writ relief, holding that a Riverside County trial court abused its ‘residual’ discretion under Penal Code section 1001.36 by denying mental-health diversion without proper analysis of the statute’s eligibility and suitability criteria.

4th District Court of Appeal, Division One
Uncategorized

People v. Gutierrez — Tree-Mortality State of Emergency Was Not Statewide; Arson Sentence Enhancement Requires Proof Fire Was in a Designated Hazard Zone

Fourth District affirms a felony arson conviction but reverses the state-of-emergency sentencing enhancement, holding the 2015 tree-mortality emergency proclamation did not extend statewide and the prosecution failed to prove the fire was in a designated hazard zone.

1st District Court of Appeal, Division Five
Uncategorized

People v. Alston — Conviction Reversed Where Trial Court Failed to Explain Reasons for Overruling Section 231.7 Objection to Peremptory Strike

First District reverses an attempted-lewd-act conviction, holding the trial court violated Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7(d)(1) by failing to explain its reasons for overruling defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of a prospective juror.

4th District Court of Appeal, Division Three
Uncategorized

Anaheim Police Dept. v. Crockett — Gun Violence Restraining Order Properly Issued Against Father Whose Son Threatened a School Shooting

Fourth District affirms a Gun Violence Restraining Order against a father whose adult son with a documented mental-health history threatened a mass shooting at a local high school, holding the order survives Second Amendment, vagueness, and overbreadth challenges.

4th District Court of Appeal, Division One
Uncategorized

People v. Zapata — Confession to Undercover ‘Perkins’ Operatives Inadmissible When Suspect Had Invoked Right to Counsel

Fourth District reverses a second-degree-murder conviction, holding that statements obtained from a defendant during an undercover Perkins operation were inadmissible under Miranda because the suspect had invoked his right to counsel and a known law-enforcement officer continued to ‘stimulate&

Scroll to Top