Skip to content
Name: People v. Lopez (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1110
Case #: E080032
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/25/2023

On remand for resentencing, trial court did not have jurisdiction to readjudicate defendant’s gang enhancement based on Assembly Bill No. 333’s amendments to Penal Code section 186.22. Lopez was convicted of murder and other offenses with gang and other enhancements. In his direct appeal, the court modified the sentence and reversed conditionally, remanding with directions to consider striking several of Lopez’s enhancements. In October 2022, the trial court struck some of the enhancements. On appeal from the resentencing, Lopez challenged the resentencing court’s refusal to apply changes to the Penal Code. He argued that under section 186.22 (as amended by…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Burhop
Case #: E076057
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/04/2021

Court order vacating second degree murder conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 is and void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was made before the remittitur had issued from prior appeal. In 2001, Burhop was convicted of first degree murder and premeditated attempted murder. On appeal (Burhop I), the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the convictions under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In 2015, the first degree murder conviction was reduced to second degree murder. In 2019, Burhop's petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 was denied on the ground Senate Bill No. 1437…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ramirez
Case #: G056522
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/10/2019

On remand for resentencing in adult court, trial court had jurisdiction to transfer case involving juvenile offenders to the juvenile court, which has jurisdiction to hold a transfer hearing for defendants who are now over 25 years old. In 2007, Ramirez and Armendariz committed two gang-related murders when they were 16 years old. Following a trial in adult court, Ramirez was sentenced to LWOP, plus 65 years to life, and Armendariz was sentenced to 90 years to life. In their first appeal, their sentences were reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing. Following the remand, defendants filed a motion…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Grunau
Case #: H015871
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/30/2008

To warrant recall of a remittitur when the appellate judgment results from ineffective assistance of counsel in abandoning the appeal, appellant must show he had no personal fault in the dismissal, he or his family acted with reasonable diligence in trying to protect his appellate rights and in discovering the dismissal, and also acted with diligence after discovering it. Petitioner was convicted in 1996 and sentenced to serve life in prison. Petitioner's father retained an attorney to prosecute the appeal. Appellate counsel timely filed a notice of appeal, but in January 1997, the court dismissed the appeal…

View Full Summary
Name: Jonathon M. v. Superior Court
Case #: C052769
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/31/2006

A juvenile court judge abused her discretion when she refused to follow a published opinion. Following the issuance of a published appellate court opinion regarding the handling of peremptory challenges in delinquency proceedings in San Joaquin County, a juvenile court judge in that county determined that she was not obligated to follow that opinion because she believed that a petition for review would be filed in that case. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate ordering the judge to follow the opinion, noting that under California Rules of Court, rule 977(d), a published opinion may be cited…

View Full Summary