The First District holds that a trial court’s mathematical error in calculating presentence custody credits is a clerical error the court can correct at any time — but that correction does not render the judgment nonfinal or entitle the defendant to full resentencing under ameliorative legisla
The California Supreme Court holds that Penal Code section 2900.5 awards custody credits on a case-by-case basis — consolidating multiple prosecutions at a single sentencing hearing does not entitle a defendant to credit the same period of custody against all cases.
The First District reversed a second-degree murder conviction because the trial court failed to clarify — when the jury asked mid-deliberation — that the rule ending self-defense once danger passes does not also eliminate the lesser defense of imperfect self-defense.
In an en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief to an Arizona death-row prisoner, clarifying that merely including an underlying petition as an exhibit does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state supreme court, and that Martinez v. Ryan requires a showing of re
The Ninth Circuit denies qualified immunity to two former SFPD inspectors accused of fabricating evidence that led to Joaquin Ciria’s 32-year wrongful imprisonment, holding that the right not to be charged based on deliberately fabricated evidence was clearly established by 1990.
Ninth Circuit revives a Section 1983 deliberate fabrication claim against a Garden Grove detective whose police report significantly mischaracterized recorded witness statements on a critical issue in the case.
The California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the death sentence of a Los Angeles father convicted of the torture-murders of two young children, holding that months of deliberate beatings, starvation, and medical neglect provided sufficient evidence of premeditated torturous intent, and that con
The California Supreme Court reverses a death-row defendant’s convictions entirely because his attorney conceded guilt over the client’s explicit objection — a structural constitutional error requiring automatic reversal — while affirming the co-defendant’s death sentence and vacat
The California Supreme Court affirms a death sentence for the 1999 rape-murder of an Oakland 11-year-old, holding that a suspect who voluntarily accompanies police to the station and is briefly placed in a lockable interview room has not been seized under the Fourth Amendment — and clarifying when v
The First District reverses the denial of compassionate release for a prisoner whose severe medical deterioration — complete loss of lower extremity function, fused spine, and incontinence — made any realistic possibility of future harm impossible.
California appellate court rules that defendants must be allowed to argue aggravating sentencing factors to a jury, reversing an upper-term firearm enhancement where the trial court denied closing argument on those factors.
The Ninth Circuit held that hash-value matches between a suspect’s files and known child pornography can establish probable cause for a search warrant without agents first downloading and visually confirming the files.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of “Shrimp Boy” Chow’s habeas petition, finding his defense team’s strategic decisions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel despite acknowledged shortcomings in trial performance.
Ninth Circuit affirms denial of Section 2255 habeas petition by former CEO convicted of wire fraud, money laundering, and obstruction, finding overwhelming trial evidence defeated ineffective assistance and right-to-maintain-innocence claims.
California appellate court reverses juvenile’s commitment to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility because the minor’s most recent offense by date was not a qualifying crime under section 707(b).
First District affirms bail bond forfeiture, holding that a trial court’s on-the-record acknowledgment of an off-the-record explanation for a defendant’s nonappearance suffices to retain jurisdiction over the bond under Penal Code section 1305.1.
Fourth District affirms that People failed to prove teenage accomplice guilty of murder under current law at section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing, but remands to redesignate his manslaughter conviction as attempted robbery rather than dismissing the case entirely.
The California Supreme Court unanimously held that defendants who accepted upper term sentences as part of a plea bargain may seek retroactive benefit of SB 567’s amendments to Penal Code section 1170(b), but the remedy is a remand for the defendant to waive, renegotiate, or withdraw the plea—not an
The Third District Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate ordering dismissal of a misdemeanor DUI case after the trial court’s policy of not empaneling juries on Mondays prevented the defendant from being brought to trial on the last statutory day under Penal Code section 1382.
The Sixth District ordered a trial court to reinstate blood-alcohol evidence in a DUI murder case, holding that a defendant’s breath-test request is irrelevant to blood-draw warrant probable cause and that the implied consent statute does not override a valid warrant.
The Ninth Circuit holds that when a racially biased juror is discovered and removed before a verdict is accepted, courts must apply the Remmer framework’s heavy presumption of prejudice—and reverses a tax-fraud conviction because the government could not rebut that presumption.
The Fifth District holds that Penal Code section 1172.75(f) excludes from resentencing only inmates who were both convicted of a sexually violent offense and sentenced to death or LWOP — reopening SB 483 resentencing for many lifers.
The Fifth District holds that body-worn camera footage showing an officer left a DUI suspect alone in a patrol car during the required 15-minute observation period is sufficient to rebut the presumption that breath test procedures were properly followed.
First District partially reverses animal rights activist’s trespass convictions arising from open-rescue activities at Sonoma County poultry farms, holding the trial court erred by limiting evidence of the defendant’s good-faith mistake of law about the legality of his conduct under the