skip to Main Content
Case: People v. Faial (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 738, review granted 5/18/2022
Case Number: S273840/A159026
Updated: March 15, 2023

AB 1950 Retroactive Application When Probation Revoked Before Effective Date

Does Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328) apply retroactively to a defendant, serving a suspended-execution sentence, whose probation was revoked before the law went into effect? (People v.…

Read more

Does Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328) apply retroactively to a defendant, serving a suspended-execution sentence, whose probation was revoked before the law went into effect? (People v. Faial (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 738, review granted 5/18/2022 (S273840/A159026).)

Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in:

  • Kuhnel v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 726, review granted 6/1/2022 (S274000)
  • People v. Butler (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 216, review granted 6/1/2022 (S273773)
  • People v. Pimentel (B312700) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 6/22/2022 (S274611)
  • People v. Canedos (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 469, review granted 6/29/2022 (S274244)
  • People v. Hart (B311264) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 6/29/2022 (S274724)
  • People v. Hernandez (B310557) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 11/16/2022 (S276725)
  • People v. Charles (C093057/C092841) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/15/2023 (S278490)

 

Case: People v. Lynch (May 27, 2022, C094174) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 8/10/2022
Case Number: S274942/C094174
Updated: March 15, 2023

Prejudice Standard on Appeal for SB 567 Issue

What prejudice standard applies on appeal when determining whether a case should be remanded for resentencing in light of newly-enacted Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731)? Review on…

Read more

What prejudice standard applies on appeal when determining whether a case should be remanded for resentencing in light of newly-enacted Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731)?

Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in:

  • People v. Vaughn (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 609, review granted 8/10/2022 (S274644)
  • People v. Green (C094752) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/14/2022 (S277265)
  • People v. Lebus (B317046) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/14/2022 (S277118)
  • People v. Waller (C093431) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/14/2022 (S277228)
  • People v. Reynoso (F083359) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/28/2022 (S277436)
  • People v. Jaramillo (C094172) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/11/2023 (S277475)
  • People v. Whyte (A160769) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/11/2023 (S277463)
  • People v. Watkins (F080436) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/19/2023 (S277573)
  • People v. Williams (F082109) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/19/2023 (S277569)
  • People v. Steward (H046931) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/25/2023 (S277702)
  • People v. Diaz (G059723) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 2/1/2023 (S277871)
  • People v. Esparza (C091260) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 2/15/2023 (S277994)
  • People v. Celestine (H049673) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 2/22/2023 (S278056)
  • People v. Ortez (B311885) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/1/2023 (S278072)
  • People v. Cummings (B316538) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/15/2023 (S278459)
  • People v. Garcia (F083245) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/15/2023 (S278513)
  • People v. Ross (A163242) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/15/2023
Case: People v. Williams (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 475, review granted 7/22/2020
Case Number: S262229/D074098
Updated: March 15, 2023

Youth Offender Parole–Constitutionality of Excluding Young Adults Sentenced Under One Strike law

Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults convicted and sentenced for serious sex crimes under the One…

Read more

Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults convicted and sentenced for serious sex crimes under the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61) from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults convicted of first degree murder are entitled to such consideration?

Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in:

  • People v. Williams (Apr. 7, 2020, A157031) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 7/22/2020 (S262191)
  • People v. Moseley (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1160, review granted 4/14/2021 (S267309/B303321)
  • People v. Escamilla (Mar. 18, 2021, F077568) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/26/2021 (S268403)
  • People v. Cervantes (Mar. 30, 2021, G057340) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 6/16/2021 (S268298)
  • People v. Miranda (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 162, review granted 6/16/2021 (S268384/E071542)
  • In re Woods (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 740, review granted 6/16/2021 (S268740/B301891)
  • People v. Jones (June 22, 2021, E074846) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 9/1/2021 (S270136)
  • People v. Boston (Oct. 29, 2021, C086940) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/26/2022 (S272107)
  • People v. Esquivel (Jan. 12, 2022, D079448) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/30/2022 (S273176)
  • People v. Jimenez (H049329) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 6/29/2022 (S274004)
  • People v. Androshchuk (C094802) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/21/2022 (S277282)
  • People v. Mitchell (E076032) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 2/15/2023 (S278038)
  • People v. Steele (E077444) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/15/2023 (S278512)
Case: Camacho v. Superior Court (Jan. 22, 2022, F082798) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/11/2022
Case Number: S273391/F082798
Updated: March 15, 2023

Delay of SVP Trial Due Process Violation?

Does a 15-year delay in bringing a defendant to trial under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et. seq) constitute a due process violation?  Review…

Read more

Does a 15-year delay in bringing a defendant to trial under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et. seq) constitute a due process violation? 

Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in:

  • People v. Ballardo (B290567) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 6/29/2022 (S274469)
  • Johnson v. Superior Court (B319328) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 7/13/2022 (S274569)
  • People v. Sipe (A163611) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/15/2023 (S278255)

 

Case: In re Cabrera (2023) __ Cal.5th __
Case Number: S271178
Updated: March 2, 2023

Judicial Fact Finding at Sentencing When Jury Failed to Reach a Verdict

Did the sentencing court err by finding petitioner's conviction for battery with serious bodily injury was a serious felony (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), despite the…

Read more

Did the sentencing court err by finding petitioner’s conviction for battery with serious bodily injury was a serious felony (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), despite the jury’s failure to reach a verdict on the allegation that petitioner personally inflicted great bodily injury in committing that offense? (See Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296; Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.)

Held:

Cabrera was charged with a number of offenses, among them battery with “serious bodily injury” in violation of Penal Code section 243 and allegations of inflicting “great bodily injury” in violation of Penal Code section 12022.7. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the count of battery with serious bodily injury, but it struggled to decide whether Cabrera had inflicted great bodily injury. The jury submitted questions to the court about the differences between serious bodily injury and great bodily injury, asking whether a finding of serious bodily injury necessarily required a finding that great bodily injury occurred. Ultimately, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the great bodily injury allegations, and the court declared a mistrial on them.

At Cabrera’s sentencing, the trial court determined that the battery charge and two related charges qualified as “serious felonies” — a finding that exposed Cabrera to an additional five-year term — because “‘there [was] great bodily injury.’” (People v. Cabrera (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 470, 474 (Cabrera).) Cabrera argued that this finding of great bodily injury by the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment principle announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi): “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Id. at p. 490.) The sentencing court disagreed and imposed the five-year enhancement. We granted review to consider whether the sentencing court’s finding that Cabrera inflicted great bodily injury violates Apprendi in light of the jury’s failure to reach a verdict on the great bodily injury allegations. We hold that the court’s finding did violate Apprendi and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

(In re Cabrera (2023) __ Cal.5th __ (S271178). This case was decided on 3/2/2023.

Case: People v. Brown (2023) __ Cal.5th __
Case Number: S257631
Updated: March 2, 2023

Murder–Instruction on Elements of First Degree Murder By Poison

(1) Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on the elements of first degree murder by poison (see People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539, 544?546; People v. Mattison (1971) 4…

Read more

(1) Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on the elements of first degree murder by poison (see People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539, 544?546; People v. Mattison (1971) 4 Cal.3d 177, 183?184, 186)? (2) Was any such instructional error prejudicial?

Held:

The District Attorney charged Brown with first degree murder and prosecuted the charge on the theory that Brown had poisoned her newborn daughter by feeding her breast milk after smoking heroin and methamphetamine. The trial court instructed the jurors that to convict Brown of first degree murder they had to find she committed “an act” with the mental state of malice aforethought that was a substantial factor in causing her baby’s death and that she “murdered by using poison.” The instructions did not require the jury to find that Brown acted with any particular, heightened mental state when she fed her baby her breast milk. They thus allowed the jury to convict Brown of first degree murder if it found that she acted with malice — a mental state that normally would only support a conviction of second degree murder — and that poison was a substantial factor in causing her baby’s death. Based on these instructions, the jury convicted Brown of the first degree murder of her newborn daughter, for which the court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

Brown argues that the jury instructions were incomplete because they did not require the jury to find she fed her daughter her breast milk with a mental state equivalent in turpitude to the willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation that generally distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder. The Attorney General argues that the instructions were complete, because, in his view, proof that a defendant used poison is sufficient to elevate a murder to the first degree, without any proof of mental state beyond the showing of malice required for all murder convictions. We conclude Brown has the better argument.

[¶]

… [S]ince in a typical first degree murder by poison case there is no question that the defendant acted with willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation, we have never addressed whether there is a mental state component of first degree poison murder. We now clarify that to prove first degree murder by means of poison, the prosecution must show the defendant deliberately gave the victim poison with the intent to kill the victim or inflict injury likely to cause death.

The trial court’s instructions did not include this element of first degree poison murder. This was error. And because a rational jury could have concluded the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown deliberately gave her newborn daughter the poisonous substances in her breast milk with the intent to kill her or inflict injury likely to cause her death, the error was prejudicial. Accordingly, we reverse Brown’s first degree murder conviction.

This case was decided on 3/2/2023.

Case: In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, review granted 9/21/2022
Case Number: S275578/B317935
Updated: March 1, 2023

What Constitutes Reversible Error When ICWA Inquiry Not Made

What constitutes reversible error when a child welfare agency fails to make the statutorily required inquiry concerning a child's potential Indian ancestry? A request for an order directing depublication of the…

Read more

What constitutes reversible error when a child welfare agency fails to make the statutorily required inquiry concerning a child’s potential Indian ancestry? A request for an order directing depublication of the Court of Appeal opinion was denied.

Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in:

  • In re G.A. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 355, review granted 10/12/2022 (S276056/C094857)
  • In re M.M. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 61, review granted 10/12/2022 (S276099/B315997)
  • In re R.T. (B315541) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 10/12/2022 (S275866)
  • In re E.T. (B315104) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/28/2022 (S277264)
  • In re Z.C. (C094803) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/28/2022 (S277229)
  • In re M.G. (B317366) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/19/2023 (S277633)
  • In re D.D. (B319941) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/1/2023 (S278070)
Case: People v. Salazar (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 453, review granted 10/12/2022
Case Number: S275788/B309803
Updated: March 1, 2023

Did Court of Appeal Err by Finding Trial Court Would Not Have Imposed a Low Term Sentence Under Newly-Added Penal Code section 1170, Subdivision (b)(6)

Did the Court of Appeal err by finding the record clearly indicates the trial court would not have imposed a low term sentence if it had been fully aware of…

Read more

Did the Court of Appeal err by finding the record clearly indicates the trial court would not have imposed a low term sentence if it had been fully aware of its discretion under newly-added subdivision (b)(6) of Penal Code section 1170? (See People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391.) (People v. Salazar (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 453, review granted 10/12/2022 (S275788/B309803).)

Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in:

  • People v. Siackasorn (C094024) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 11/16/2022 (S276818)
  • People v. Rodriguez (B316391) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 11/22/2022 (S276889)
  • People v. Brasuell (B308124) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 11/30/2022 (S277048)
  • People v. Cooper (C095245) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/28/2022 (S277431)
  • People v. Barocio, (B317635) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/11/2023 (S277577)
  • People v. Watkins (F080436) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/18/2023 (S277573)
  • People v. Ortez (B311885) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/1/2023 (S278072)