Skip to content

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1950 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328) apply retroactively to a defendant, serving a suspended-execution sentence, whose probation was revoked before the law went into effect? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: First District Kuhnel v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 726, review granted 6/1/2022 (S274000/A163307) People v. Jackson (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th…

Case: People v. Faial (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 738, review granted 5/18/2022
Case Number: S273840/A159026
Updated: September 13, 2023
Read more

Retroactivity of AB 1950 and Remand Procedure

Review was originally granted with briefing deferred pending decision in People v. Hernandez (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 942, review granted 1/27/2021 and case transferred to Court of Appeal on 12/22/2021 (S265739/F080131), which presented the following issues: (1) If a defendant's prior prison term enhancements are stricken under Senate Bill No. 136, does the remainder of the sentence agreed to under a…

Case: People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961
Case Number: S271057
Updated: June 26, 2023
Read more

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 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…

Case: People v. Williams (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 475, review granted 7/22/2020
Case Number: S262229/D074098
Updated: April 12, 2023
Read more

Required Findings and Balancing Test for Admitting Hearsay at Probation/Parole Revocation Hearings

Did the trial court violate the due process right to confrontation applicable at probation and parole revocation hearings by admitting hearsay statements in a bodycam video under the excited utterance exception (Evid. Code, § 1240) without first making a finding of good cause and determining whether a balancing of the relevant factors under People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144 favored…

Case: People v. Gray (2023) 15 Cal.5th 152
Case Number: S269237
Updated: August 14, 2023
Read more

Prop. 57–CDCR Excluding Sex Offenders From Early Parole Consideration

Under Proposition 57 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32), may the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation categorically exclude from early parole consideration all prisoners who have been previously convicted of a sex offense requiring registration under Penal Code section 290? On 10/8/2020, the court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the following issue: Did the California Department…

Case: In re Gadlin (2020) 10 Cal.5th 915
Case Number: S254599
Updated: December 28, 2020
Read more

Probation–Finality of Judgment for Purposes of Applying Change in Law

When is the judgment in a criminal case final for purposes of applying a later change in the law if the defendant was granted probation and imposition of sentence was suspended? Held: An ameliorative statute applies to all nonfinal cases, including those in which a defendant is placed on probation, with imposition of sentence suspended, and where no appeal is…

Case: People v. McKenzie (2020) 9 Cal.5th 40
Case Number: S251333
Updated: February 27, 2020
Read more