Panel Victories

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court abused its discretion in delegating to the guardian the determination of whether visitation between the father and the minor would occur at all. When a juvenile court orders…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the appellant's case should be remanded for resentencing due to legislative changes to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021- 2022 Reg. Sess.) because the…

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's Romero motion and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 60 years to life. The court did not properly consider the nature of the…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that Assembly Bill No. 333, which amended Penal Code section 186.22 and added section 1109, requires reversal of the appellant's gang enhancement. Additionally, Assembly Bill No. 1869, which amended the Penal Code…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the Department of Social Services did not fulfill its statutory duty under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) when it failed to ask extended family members about the children's Indian ancestry…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court erred in imposing punishment for the appellant's convictions for domestic violence, assault, and false imprisonment without staying two of the sentences pursuant to Penal Code section 654, as…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that Assembly Bill No. 333 applies retroactively to the appellant's gang enhancements and vicarious firearm enhancements, and further held that AB 333 did not unconstitutionally amend Proposition 21 as applied to Penal…

The Court of Appeal granted the parties' joint motion, pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 960 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), to waive all appellate claims, remand the matter to the trial court for a compassionate release hearing conducted pursuant to the Penal…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that Assembly Bill No. 518, which modified Penal Code section 654 to give trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment (instead of having to choose the…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court erred when it imposed a $300 parole revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.45 after staying his determinate terms under section 654 and sentencing him to life without…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court improperly denied the appellant’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47, which reclassified certain felony and wobbler offenses to misdemeanors. The appellant’s felony conviction for Penal Code section…

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering noneconomic victim restitution without stating its method of calculation or the factual basis for its order. Such statements are required because they are frequently essential to…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court erred in failing to permanently stay the appellant’s Penal Code section 12022.1 enhancement, as the judgment was nonfinal when the primary offense was reduced to a misdemeanor.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the appellant’s case must be remanded for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which generally limits the trial court’s ability to impose an upper term sentence unless…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that because appellant was 23 years old when he committed the offenses and the parole board will have to consider his diminished capacity and subsequent maturation in assessing his suitability for parole…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the denial of the appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 must be reversed in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698. The denial was based on the jury…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the appellant’s conviction for Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (b), violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws because the appellant's conduct may have predated the date the section went…

The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court erred when it terminated parental rights without asking the children’s extended family members about the children’s possible Indian ancestry. The error was not harmless. The court conditionally reversed the juvenile court’s…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant’s argument and the Attorney General’s concession that substantial evidence did not support the appellant’s conviction for reckless evasion (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) where there was no evidence the peace officer was wearing…

The Court of Appeal held that the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency and the juvenile court failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The court…

In light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal reversed the denial of the appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The denial, which was done without appointment of counsel or opportunity for briefing, was…

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of legislative changes to Penal Code section 1170 made by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which, among other things, created a presumption in favor of a low prison term…

In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the court found that the Department of Social Services and the juvenile court did not satisfy their duty to inquire into the extended family’s possible Native American ancestry. The error was…

In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the court concluded that the Department of Social Services and the juvenile court did not satisfy their duty to inquire into the extended family’s possible Native American ancestry. The error was…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that remand for resentencing was required based on retroactive application of Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code section 1170 to require trial courts to impose the lower…

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of legislative changes to Penal Code section 1170 made by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which now requires that circumstances in aggravation used to justify imposition of the upper…

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the appellant’s convictions for Penal Code section 288.7 violated the state and federal constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws, as the offenses occurred before section 288.7 was enacted. The court…

In light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal reversed the denial of the appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The denial was based on the jury findings that the appellant was a major…