Skip to content
Name: People v. Berlin (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 757
Case #: A166452
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/26/2024

The trial court erred in ordering restitution after the end of the statutory maximum two-year period of mental health diversion because Penal Code section 1001.36(f)(1)(D), only permits the trial court to order restitution “during the period of diversion.” The trial court dismissed criminal charges against Berlin after she successfully completed mental health diversion, but ordered her to pay over $17,000 in restitution. Berlin appealed, arguing the trial court erred in issuing a restitution order after the end of the two-year period of diversion. Held: Restitution orders reversed. The Court of Appeal concluded the statutory language of section 1002.36 compelled reversal…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ellis
Case #: B325433
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 05/15/2024

The trial court struck two PC 667.5(b) priors at defendant's PC 1172.75 resentencing. Defendant argued on appeal that he did not receive a “full resentencing” because the trial court did not resentence to the middle term as generally required under amended PC 1170 (SB 567). The trial court and parties had not “expressly” mentioned SB 567 at resentencing, and the original sentence was a stipulated one. The Court of Appeal affirms, holding, among eight grounds for denying relief, that PC 1172.75(d)(4) precludes middle term resentencing when the original sentence imposed the upper term.

The full opinion is available on the court’s…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lewis (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 401
Case #: E082085
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/03/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered published 4/10/2024

Trial court abused its discretion in denying compassionate release under Penal Code section 1172.2 where the finding that defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety was not supported by substantial evidence. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder committed in 2020. He was also associated with a street gang and had a significant criminal history. In 2023, the CDCR’s director of Health Care Services sent a letter to the superior court recommending compassionate release under section 1172.2. Defendant was diagnosed with ALS, which was rapidly progressing, and he had “a clear end of life trajectory.” Defendant had…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gray (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 148
Case #: F085699
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/04/2024

Trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify an NGI acquittees’s maximum commitment term under Penal Code section 1172.75 because NGI acquittees have not been sentenced and thus do not fall within the relief provided by the statute. In 2016, Gray pled no contest to felony offenses. The trial court found him not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) and committed him to DSH for a maximum term that included six one-year prior prison term enhancements. Following the passage of Senate Bill No. 136 and Senate Bill No. 483, which limited one-year prior prison term sentencing enhancements to sexually violent offenses, the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324
Case #: A166011
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 03/28/2024

Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation where he methodically pumped and aimed a shotgun at two peace officers. Serrano went on a crime spree that culminated in his shooting a rifle at two uniformed officers who approached him following a car crash. He was found guilty by jury of two counts of premeditated attempted murder of a peace officer, among other crimes. Serrano appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence supporting the findings of premeditation and deliberation. Held: Affirmed. After the considering the categories of evidence set forth in People v. Anderson (1968) 70…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Santos (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 666
Case #: C096979
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/14/2024

A defendant whose sentence is recalled pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 to strike a prison prior enhancement is not entitled to application of the Three Strikes Reform Act (Proposition 36) at resentencing. Originally sentenced in 2007, defendant received a term of 25 years to life for drug offenses under the original Three Strikes law, prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5(b)), and prior drug conviction enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2(b)). At a 2022 section 1172.75 resentencing hearing to dismiss now invalid terms, the trial court struck the prison prior and drug conviction enhancements but left intact…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Pittman (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1252
Case #: A166669
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 02/27/2024

The trial court may rely on a victim estimate included in a police or restitution report when determining the amount of restitution to be awarded. Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree burglary. At the restitution hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay a total of $6,700 in restitution, consisting of $150 for a safe and $6,550 for various items of jewelry. The values of the items were based on what the victims had provided in the police report. This amount differed from what they later claimed on their restitution report. Defendant appealed. Held: Affirmed. The value of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ferenz (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1032
Case #: H049430
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/26/2024
Subsequent History: ordered published 2/21/2024

Police reports, district attorney investigative reports, interview transcripts, preliminary hearing transcripts, and prior conviction records were properly attached to prosecutor’s statement of view pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.01. Defendant pleaded no contest to rape of an unconscious person, forcible rape, and dissuading a witness and was sentenced to state prison. Prior to sentencing, the prosecutor submitted a statement of view, which included the above-refenced attachments, noting the materials could be relevant to assess defendant for possible treatment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). On appeal, defendant argued the attachments impermissibly went beyond the scope of the crimes committed, contained…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McDowell (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1147
Case #: G062263
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 02/23/2024

Senate Bill No. 81 does not apply to the alternative punishment for human trafficking of a minor under Penal Code section 236.1(c)(2), as it is an alternative penalty provision and not an enhancement. Defendant was convicted of human trafficking of a minor (§ 236.1(c)) and other offenses, and sentenced to 23 years to life. This included an indeterminate term of 15 years to life under the alternative penalty provision of section 236.1(c)(2), which deals with human trafficking of a minor with aggravating circumstances. On appeal, defendant argued that SB 81 required the trial court to dismiss his elevated sentence of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391
Case #: A166863
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 01/31/2024

At resentencing, the trial court is only required to recalculate all actual time the defendant has served, while CDCR is responsible for calculating a defendant’s postsentence conduct credits. Defendant was convicted of and sentenced to several felonies. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing due to an intervening change in the sentencing law. At resentencing, the trial court determined that since the initial sentencing hearing, defendant had earned 761 days actual credit with an additional 114 days of conduct credit pursuant to section 2933.1. Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court should have updated only the calculation of actual time…

View Full Summary