Skip to content
Name: People v. Sherman (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 325
Case #: D080241
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/09/2023

Resentencing for consideration of military service under Penal Code section 1170.91 does not apply to defendants convicted of super-strike offenses or offenses requiring registration as a sex offender, including cases pending on appeal when this limitation went into effect. In 2020, defendant petitioned under section 1170.91 for resentencing of his 2001 convictions for rape and sexual assault of five women, resulting in a sentence of 123 years to life. He argued that his substance abuse and mental health conditions, which were a result of his military service, were not considered as mitigating factors at his original sentencing. The trial court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Baldivia
Case #: H043736
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/05/2018

Plea agreements contemplate changes in the law when the Legislature intended those changes to apply and such issues may be raised on appeal without a certificate of probable cause (CPC). Appellant committed several offenses when he was 17 years old and was charged with those crimes in criminal court. In May 2016, he pleaded guilty to two robberies, evading an officer, and admitted a gun use enhancement. He filed a notice of appeal and did not obtain a CPC. While his appeal was pending, Proposition 57 passed. This new law requires cases involving minors to be filed in juvenile court…

View Full Summary
Name: People ex rel. Pierson v. Superior Court
Case #: C081603
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/10/2017

The amendments to Penal Code section 917 that prohibit a grand jury from inquiring into an offense where an officer used lethal force are unconstitutional because the Legislature cannot limit the grand jury's constitutional power to indict. In 2015 an officer shot and killed a suspect. The El Dorado County District Attorney convened a grand jury but the superior court dismissed the grand jury pursuant to section 917, which was amended in 2015 to prohibit grand jury indictments in such cases. The district attorney filed a writ of mandate challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Held: Peremptory writ issued. Article…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rojas
Case #: F067157
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/22/2015

Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (a) conviction reversed because jury may have interpreted jury instruction to allow conviction based on conduct that predated the effective date of the statute. Rojas was found guilty of sexual offenses involving his stepdaughter (Pen. Code, §§ 288.5, 288.7, subds. (a), (b)). The trial court instructed the jury with a modified version of CALCRIM No. 207, which stated, in part, that it was alleged that the crimes in count 2 (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a)) and count 3 occurred on or about December 1, 2006, through August 5, 2011, and that the People were…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lynall
Case #: H041737
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/29/2015

Court of Appeal has jurisdiction where a defendant was charged with a felony and the offense was ultimately reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 as part of plea negotiations. An information charged Lynall with felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and two misdemeanors. Shortly thereafter, Proposition 47 passed and the trial court amended the information to reflect that the methamphetamine possession charge "is now, by operation of law a misdemeanor." Lynall then pled guilty to that offense and the two other misdemeanors were dismissed. The court imposed a conditional sentence with Proposition 36…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kelly
Case #: B195624
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/22/2008
Subsequent History: 8/13/08 rev. granted: S164830

Health and Safety Code section 11362.77, which caps the amount of marijuana a patient may have, unconstitutionally amends the Compassionate Use Act. The Compassionate Use Act (CUA) did not place a cap on how much marijuana a patient may possess or cultivate, but the Legislature subsequently enacted, without voter approval, Health and Safety Code section 11362.77, which places the cap at 8 ounces plus 12 immature plants or 6 mature plants without a specific recommendation that such a quantity does not meet the patient's needs. Officers searched appellant Kelly's home and found 12 ounces of marijuana…

View Full Summary