Skip to content
Name: People v. Mitchell (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1127
Case #: F084489
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/15/2023

Following remand for resentencing, appellant was entitled to the retroactive benefits of Assembly Bill No. 333. Mitchell was convicted felony offenses (including being an active gang member) and the jury found numerous gang enhancements true. Pursuant to Mitchell’s prior appeal, which occurred before AB 333 became law, his case was remanded for resentencing. By the time of the resentencing hearing, AB 333, which amended the law regarding the substantive gang offense and enhancement, had become effective. The trial court expressed concern whether the new law should be applied, but found itself bound by the scope of the remittitur and concluded…

View Full Summary
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. Nash
Case #: D079539
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/13/2023

The law of the case doctrine precluded the resentencing court from finding that a prison term of 15 years to life was cruel and/or unusual punishment. Upon his conviction for child molestation, Nash was sentenced to a determinate term after the trial court found a life sentence under the One Strike law was cruel and unusual punishment. On appeal, the sentence was reversed and the case remanded. At resentencing the trial court said it was regrettably compelled to impose 15 years to life based on the Court of Appeal’s disposition. Nash appealed, challenging his sentence as unconstitutionally cruel and/or unusual…

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: People v. Rocha
Case #: B290779
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 02/19/2019

Where a case was remanded to give the trial court an opportunity to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h) after the enactment of Senate Bill No. 620, defendant had a right to be present with counsel at a hearing. On his first appeal, Roach's conviction was affirmed and his case remanded "for the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 12022.53, subdivision (h)" based on SB 620. On remand, the case was called "for hearing on remittitur," but Rocha, his counsel, and the prosecutor were not present. The court issued a written order declining…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hargis
Case #: F076087
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/20/2019

Where Court of Appeal remanded case for a Franklin hearing, the trial court had jurisdiction to grant defendant's motion for a juvenile fitness/transfer hearing under Proposition 57 because the new law went into effect after the appellate opinion was filed, but before the case was final. In 2009, 16-year-old Hargis was convicted in criminal court of various offenses. His first appeal resulted in remand for a Franklin hearing to present facts for a future youthful parole hearing. The remittitur issued and the trial court set the matter for a hearing. Prior to the Franklin hearing, Proposition 57 was enacted and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Goolsby
Case #: S216648
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 10/15/2015

Where the prosecution never charged defendant with a lesser offense, but the trial court instructed the jury on the lesser offense at trial, defendant can be retried for the lesser offense following reversal of greater offense for insufficient evidence. Goolsby was charged with arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (a)). Erroneously believing that arson of property (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)) was a lesser included offense of the charged crime, the trial court instructed the jury on this offense and that it could reach a verdict on the offense only if it acquitted defendant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Christiansen
Case #: B252804
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/30/2014

After finding defendant factually innocent, trial court erred by refusing to order the destruction of her fingerprint impressions, taken at time of arrest. Appellant was found guilty of conflict of interest (Gov. Code, § 1090) and appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed her conviction and ordered the trial court to dismiss all charges against her (People v. Christiansen (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1181). On remand, appellant moved for dismissal and a finding of factual innocence (Pen. Code, § 851.8). She requested that all of the arrest records be sealed and destroyed, including removal of identifiers such as DNA and fingerprint impressions…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rosas
Case #: G043158
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/21/2010

When an appellate court orders a sentencing remand, the trial court may reduce fines as part of that resentencing even though the defendant did not challenge those fines on appeal. After an appeal resulted in a sentencing remand, trial counsel asked the trial court to lower the restitution fine. The court did so, even though the appellate opinion provided no directions as to the fine since there had been no appellate issues involving the amount of the fine. In this appeal, appellant argued the abstract of judgment did not reflect the change to the restitution fine. The…

View Full Summary
Name: Douglas v. Jacquez
Case #: 08-17478
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 11/24/2010

A federal habeas court cannot order a state court to resentence a defendant to a lesser-included offense, but there is no double jeopardy violation if the state court, on its own volition, resentences a defendant on a lesser-included offense. Appellant stabbed the victim to death and then burned the residence. He was convicted of murder and arson of an inhabited dwelling. The federal district court reversed the arson conviction based on insufficient evidence, finding that since the victim, the sole resident, was dead when the arson occurred, the residence was not an inhabited structure. The court remanded with instructions to…

View Full Summary