Skip to content
Name: People v. Barnes
Case #: C093243
Opinion Date: 08/16/2022
Attorney: James Bisnow

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court erred in imposing the full middle term for an enhancement on a count where it imposed one-third the middle term, as Penal Code section 1170.1 required the trial court to impose one-third the middle term on the enhancement as well. The court ordered the judgment to be modified accordingly.

Name: People v. Gutierrez
Case #: C094761
Opinion Date: 08/10/2022
Attorney: Lynette Moore

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that remand was required for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (6), which was amended by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to create a presumption in favor of a low prison term when a defendant is under 26 years of age at the time of the offense. The court advised that upon remand, the trial court can reconsider the appellant’s sentence under section 1170, subdivisions (b)(1) and (2) as well. Finally, the court held that the appellant was entitled to 90 additional days of presentence credit under Penal Code section 2900.5.

Name: People v. Rangal
Case #: C094873
Opinion Date: 08/05/2022
Attorney: Brad J. Poore

Finding that Assembly Bill No. 1540 applies to the appellant’s case as a clarification of Penal Code former section 1170(d)(1), the Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court prejudicially erred in declining to exercise its discretion to recall the appellant’s sentence or strike the enhancements without appointing counsel, providing notice to the appellant, holding a hearing, or explaining its reasoning. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration of CDCR’s recommendation to recall and resentence the appellant in accordance with Penal Code section 1172.1.

Name: People v. Nunez
Case #: F080121
Opinion Date: 07/29/2022
Attorney: Robert L.S. Angres

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that remand for resentencing was required in light of retroactive statutory amendments to Penal Code sections 654 (Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) and 1170 (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)). The court further directed the trial court to place it findings as to its application of section 654 on the record.

Name: People v. Sanchez
Case #: C094863
Opinion Date: 07/25/2022
Attorney: Lynette Moore

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that in light of the amendments to Penal Code section 1170 made by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), remand was appropriate for the trial court to consider the appellant’s age at the time of the offenses. The court further advised that the trial court can consider any other applicable changes to section 1170.

Name: People v. Carruthers
Case #: F082407
Opinion Date: 06/22/2022
Attorney: Kevin J. Lindsley

At the time the trial court denied the appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95, the statute was understood to exclude those convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter. The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the order must be reversed in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.).

Name: People v. Estrada
Case #: F082540
Opinion Date: 06/21/2022
Attorney: David W. Beaudreau

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of legislative changes to Penal Code section 1170, made by Assembly Bill No. 124 and Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), and changes to Penal Code section 654, made by Senate Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.).

Name: People v. Martinez
Case #: F082865
Opinion Date: 06/20/2022
Attorney: Matthew J. Watts

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court erred in relying on facts contained in the appellate opinion from a co-defendant’s case to conclude that the appellant failed to make a prima facie case for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6. The trial court additionally erred in failing to appoint counsel. The errors were not harmless. The court remanded the matter with directions to issue an order to show cause and conduct a hearing on the petition to determine whether to vacate the appellant’s murder conviction and resentence him.

Name: People v. Olivera
Case #: F081186
Opinion Date: 06/10/2022
Attorney: Aaron Joseph Schechter

Based on Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019−2020 Reg. Sess.), which limited the maximum probation term a trial court is authorized to impose for most felony offenses to two years, the court reduced appellant’s three year probation term to two years. The court also reversed the trial court’s order revoking appellant’s driver’s license, which it is not authorized to do under Vehicle Code section 13351.5.

Name: People v. Green
Case #: F083294
Opinion Date: 06/09/2022
Attorney: Laura Gordon

Because the trial court partially denied the appellant’s Penal Code section 1170.03 (renumbered to 1172.1) resentencing petition before the enactment of Assembly Bill 1540, which requires the court to apply any changes in law that reduce sentences and created a presumption in favor of resentencing when the request comes from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Court of Appeal remanded the matter for further proceedings in compliance with the amended legislation.

Name: People v. Jones
Case #: F080777
Opinion Date: 06/08/2022
Attorney: Donn Ginoza

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended 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 one that provided for the longest potential term of imprisonment), retroactively applies to the appellant’s case. The appellant is entitled to a full resentencing. The court further held the trial court’s imposition of a 7-year term (stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654) on an offense with a middle term of 3 years and a high term of 5 years was unauthorized.

Name: People v. Brownlee
Case #: C093747
Opinion Date: 05/26/2022
Attorney: Allan Junker

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that in denying the appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), the trial court erred in applying a felony murder rule analysis when the appellant was tried for second degree murder as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The court remanded the matter for a new hearing.

Name: People v. Ramsey
Case #: F079841
Opinion Date: 05/26/2022
Attorney: Jill M. Klein

In an appeal from the denial of the appellant’s Penal Code section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage, the Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court improperly made factual findings after looking at the appellant’s testimony at his co-defendant’s trial, which was beyond the record of the appellant’s conviction. The court reversed the denial of the appellant’s petition and remanded the matter with instructions to issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing to determine whether to vacate the appellant’s murder conviction, recall his sentence, and resentence him.

Name: People v. Avendano et al.
Case #: F079411
Opinion Date: 05/18/2022
Attorney: Theresa Osterman Stevenson

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code section 186.22 by adding a new element, applied retroactively to the appellant’s case. Error was not harmless under the standard articulated in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18. The court concluded that the gang-related enhancement findings must be vacated and the matter remanded to give the People the opportunity to prove the applicability of the enhancements under the amendments to section 186.22.

Name: People v. Pinon
Case #: F080327
Opinion Date: 05/11/2022
Attorney: Carla J. Johnson

The court agreed with the parties that the appellant was entitled to a remand for resentencing due to the retroactive application of multiple changes in the law: Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which establishes a presumption that the trial court will impose the lower term when a defendant was under 26 years of age at the time of the offense and their age was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense; Assembly Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which generally limits the trial court’s ability to impose the upper term; Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which provides that a trial court is no longer required to impose a sentence under the crime providing for the longest possible sentence and may now sentence a defendant under any one of the applicable crimes; and People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, which held that if a trial court strikes or dismisses a Penal Code section 12022.53(d) enhancement, it may then impose an enhancement under section 12022.53(b) or (c). Further, Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) significantly modified the requirements to prove gang enhancement under section 186.22, and because the jury convicted the appellant under the prior version of the law, his gang enhancements must be reversed.

Name: People v. Philbrook
Case #: C088692
Opinion Date: 05/10/2022
Attorney: Michelle May Peterson

In this appeal from the denial of a Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, the Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that remand was appropriate in light of Senate Bill No. 775, which extended 1172.6 eligibility to individuals, like appellant, who were convicted of manslaughter.

Name: People v. Simpson
Case #: F082821
Opinion Date: 04/07/2022
Attorney: Allan E. Junker

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) retroactively applied to the appellant. Accordingly, any portion of the fees imposed under Penal Code repealed section 1203.1b that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021, must be vacated. Furthermore, the probation condition giving the appellant’s probation officer the unlimited ability to search all his electronic devices was unconstitutionally overbroad and a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, as the condition had no relationship to his criminal conduct. The court struck the condition and remanded so as to permit the trial court to tailor it more narrowly.

Name: People v. Robles
Case #: F079722
Opinion Date: 04/07/2022
Attorney: Alan Junker

In 2019, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 (now 1172.6), which was summarily denied because the statute did not provide relief for those convicted of voluntary manslaughter. On appeal, appellant argued Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended section 1172.6 to expressly permit resentencing of certain individuals convicted of manslaughter, applied, requiring reversal. The Court of Appeal agreed, reversed the denial of appellant’s 1172.6 petition, and remanded for further proceedings.

Name: People v. McMurray
Case #: C090767
Opinion Date: 03/30/2022
Attorney: Karriem Baker

The Court of Appeal held that Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) constitutes a clarification of existing law and therefore applies to cases involving the interpretation of former section 1170(d)(1) (now 1170.03). Because the trial court failed to provide the appellant with notice of CDCR’s recommendation for resentencing, appoint counsel, hold a hearing, or state its reasons for declining to resentence the appellant, the court reversed and remand the matter so that the trial court can consider CDCR’s recommendation under the new and clarified procedure and guidelines of Penal Code 1170.03.

Name: People v. Lee
Case #: C094703
Opinion Date: 01/18/2022
Attorney: Kendall D. Wasley

In a motion to dismiss the People’s appeal, the appellant argued the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the District Attorney’s motion to reinstate the appellant’s probation over five months after it was terminated pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), making the trial court’s denial of the motion a non-appealable order. The court granted the appellant’s motion to dismiss the People’s appeal.