Skip to content
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. Cruz
Case #: B276571
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/03/2017

A prior jury determination that appellant did not use a knife during the commission of a crime is not determinative for a finding of eligibility for Proposition 36 relief. In 2001, Cruz was convicted of false imprisonment by violence after he forced his way into a woman's home, grabbed a knife, and tried to stab her in the stomach. Cruz then forced her to disrobe and lie down while he ran the kitchen knife between her legs. She escaped while Cruz was distracted. The jury convicted Cruz of false imprisonment by violence and misdemeanor assault. It acquitted Cruz of other…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hannon
Case #: A145945
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 11/03/2016

Victim of embezzlement may submit an impact statement to the Court of Appeal but may not present legal issues that were not raised by appellant or facts that are not in the record. Hannon, a former lawyer, was convicted of grand theft by embezzlement by a fiduciary (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 506) for stealing money from a trust account established for a client's children. He appealed the trial court's victim restitution order. One of the victims filed an impact statement in the Court of Appeal, asserting a claim for additional restitution. Hannon challenged the right of the victim…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lozano
Case #: B263640
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/14/2016

Juvenile murderer's LWOP sentence reversed where trial court refused to hear evidence of her postconviction efforts to rehabilitate. When she was 16 years old, Lozano participated in a killing and, in 1996, was convicted of first degree murder with a special circumstance. She was sentenced to LWOP. After Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455 was decided, the prosecution agreed with Lozano's request to be resentenced. Prior to resentencing, defendant filed a statement in mitigation of punishment, attaching hundreds of pages of exhibits that traced her educational and counseling efforts, as well as commendations from prison staff for her…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Kaulick)
Case #: B246632
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/30/2013

Under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36), on a resentencing petition, the prosecution is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard on the issue of dangerousness and has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. After Proposition 36 went into effect, Kaulick, who was serving a 25-years-to-life sentence under the Three Strikes law for a felony that was not serious or violent, filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking resentencing. The trial court granted his petition without providing the prosecution the opportunity to be heard. The district attorney filed a petition for writ…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Stuckey
Case #: C057782
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/09/2009

A defendant has no statutory right to appointment of an expert for a sentencing hearing and any constitutional right that may exist is qualified. Appellant was on probation in two cases for drug offenses when he was arrested for and pled guilty to a new drug offense. Prior to sentencing, defense counsel filed a motion for appointment of an expert, a psychotherapist and a drug treatment evaluator, to assist the defense in procuring alternative options to a prison sentence. The court denied the motion, indicating an expert was not necessary. The appellate court rejected appellant's argument that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ponce
Case #: B209918
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/25/2009

A three-year protective order for the victim of a robbery was unsupported by a showing of necessity and unauthorized. At appellant's sentencing hearing following a plea to robbery for the benefit of a street gang, the court issued a three-year protective order for the victim of the robbery at the prosecutor's request, without explanation. On appeal, Ponce contended that the three-year protective order was not authorized by Penal Code section 136.2. The appellate court agreed and ordered the protective order stricken. Section 136.2 authorizes a protective order for a witness in a criminal case during the pendency of the trial…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lee
Case #: F052081
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/25/2008

The trial court has no independent obligation to obtain evidence to support a defendant's Romero request for dismissal of a prior "strike" conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. Appellant filed a motion asking the trial court to dismiss a "strike," but neither the defense nor the prosecution provided any evidence as to appellant’s background, character, or prospects that might have supported appellant’s claim that he was outside the spirit of the Three Strikes sentencing scheme. Referring to the "strike" offense and the present offense, the trial court denied the request. The appellate court rejected appellant's claim…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Randall
Case #: C053878
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/18/2007
Subsequent History: 1/3/08 rev. granted (S157645)

Penal Code section 1191.1 permits a crime victim to attend all sentencing proceedings. Appellant was convicted of driving under the influence and causing great bodily injury to the victim S.H. Consistent with a plea agreement, appellant was sentenced to probation. At the sentencing hearing, the court heard from S.H., pursuant to Penal Code section 1191.1 At a subsequent hearing, the court revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to state prison. S.H. also appeared and spoke at that hearing. Appellant appealed his sentence, contending that the trial court erred in allowing S.H. to speak at…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ormiston
Case #: A094813
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/22/2003
Subsequent History: Rehg. denied 2/19/03.

Walking while carrying drugs from one place to another qualifies as transportation. Here appellant’s conviction for transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, sec. 11379), was based upon the discovery of meth in his possession as he walked across a parking lot. The crux of the crime of transporting is movement of the contraband from one place to another. (People v. Kilborn (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 998, 1003.) The evidence indisputably established the movement of the meth by appellant from one place to another, walking away from his motel room with three baggies of recently manufactured methamphetamine…

View Full Summary