Skip to content
Name: People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113
Case #: D081445
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/26/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered published 4/3/2024

Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s 2022 request for mental health pretrial diversion (Pen. Code, § 1001.36), where the denial occurred before statutory amendments went into effect on January 1, 2023. In 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s pretrial request diversion under section 1001.36 finding that he did suffer from a mental health disorder but that it did not contribute in any way to the offense. Defendant was subsequently convicted of two felonies in November 2022 and sentenced on January 11, 2023, ten days after the effective dates of certain amendments to section 1001.36. Held: Reversed. Prior to the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. De La Rosa Burgara (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1054
Case #: H049363
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/13/2023

The changes made by Senate Bill No. 567 to Penal Code section 1170(b) apply retroactively to convictions reached by plea agreements providing for a stipulated sentence. As part of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to charges of assault with a deadly weapon and hit-and-run driving resulting in permanent, serious injury after he purposely hit a person with his car. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate stipulated sentence of eight years in prison, which included a four-year upper term for his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, defendant argued the postsentencing enactment of…

View Full Summary
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. Jackson (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 207
Case #: A164649
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/06/2023

Trial court had no jurisdiction to find a violation of probation because, due to Assembly Bill No. 1950’s retroactive change to Penal Code section 1203.1, defendant’s probationary term had expired before the misconduct occurred. In January 2017, defendant entered a plea to burglary and was sentenced to five years of probation. In July 2020, he was charged with having committed probation violations in July and October 2019 (i.e., more than two years after his probationary term began). In August 2020, the court summarily revoked probation pending a formal hearing. In January 2021, AB 1950 took effect, decreasing the maximum period of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ramos (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 578
Case #: D074429
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/13/2023

Evidence Code section 352.2 (added by Assembly Bill No. 2799 and effective 1/1/2023), which creates specific rules that the trial court must follow in deciding whether to admit evidence of “a form of creative expression” in a criminal trial, does not apply retroactively. E. Ramos and D. Ramos were convicted of first degree murder and other offenses based on evidence they participated in a gang-related shooting. Recordings of E. Ramos performing rap were admitted at the trial. The lyrics referred to gang culture and criminal activity. In supplemental briefing on appeal, they argued that newly enacted section 352.2 should apply…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277
Case #: C097055
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/30/2023

Minor is entitled to a new transfer/amenability hearing under the current version of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, which was significantly amended by Assembly Bill No. 2361 (effective 1/1/2023). Following a hearing to transfer S.S. to a court of criminal jurisdiction for allegations including murder, the juvenile court found S.S. unfit to be treated under the juvenile law based on the standards set forth in former section 707 and transferred the case to criminal court. S.S. appealed. Held: Reversed and remanded. AB 2361 amended section 707 to (1) increase the prosecution’s burden from the preponderance of the evidence to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409
Case #: B319738
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/17/2023

Remand for a new fitness hearing was warranted due to significant changes made to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 by Assembly Bill No. 2361 (effective 1/1/2023). Following a fitness hearing for a delinquency case involving murder and attempted murder allegations, the juvenile court found E.P. unfit to be treated under the juvenile law based on the standards set forth in former section 707 and transferred the case to criminal court. E.P. appealed. Held: Reversed. Recent amendments changed section 707, including increasing the prosecution’s burden from the preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing, making the question of whether…

View Full Summary
Name: Mendoza v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 42
Case #: F084354
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/03/2023

Assembly Bill No. 333’s changes to the elements of gang-related charges apply retroactively to preliminary hearing proceedings. Mendoza sought a writ of mandamus after the superior court denied his Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss a charge for active participation in a criminal street gang and the gang enhancements attached to multiple counts. He asserted that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, while sufficient at the time of the hearing, was now insufficient in light of the changes to Penal Code section 186.22 by AB 333. The Court of Appeal ultimately issued an order directing the respondent to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. White
Case #: C095640
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/27/2022

A Franklin hearing does not reopen a final judgment or sentencing; it is an “evidence preservation process” to gather data for future determination of parole. In 2006, White was convicted of second degree murder and other offenses based on an accident he caused driving while intoxicated. He requested and received a Franklin hearing (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261) to place on the record mitigating factors in anticipation of a youthful parole hearing. (See Pen. Code, § 3051.) On appeal, he argued the Franklin hearing reopened his case, which would allow application of Assembly Bill No. 518. Held: Affirmed.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Pinedo
Case #: F078442
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/15/2021

Although registration is not a criminal punishment, the repeal of the drug offender registration requirement (Assembly Bill No. 1261) is retroactive to all nonfinal cases pursuant to In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, because registration burdens a defendant as a result of a qualifying conviction. Pinedo was convicted of two felonies. At sentencing, he was ordered to register as a narcotics offender. (Former Health & Saf. Code, § 11590.) On appeal, Pinedo challenged the registration requirement because AB 1261 repealed the statute requiring registration. The Attorney General argued that registration is not punishment and therefore the change in the…

View Full Summary