Skip to content
Name: People v. Morgan
Case #: A166435
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/08/2024

(1) Substantial evidence supported resisting officer by "use of force or violence" conviction (PC 69) when defendant pointed unloaded gun at officer and pulled the trigger; (2) follows People v. Wiley (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 676, review granted March 12, 2024, S283326, in holding PC 1170(b)(3) does not require jury to determine "unsatisfactory" past probation performance or "numerous" prior convictions aggravating factors; (3) trial court improperly made "dual use" of defendant's firearm brandishing by imposing sentence for gun enhancement and also considering jury's true finding on gun use aggravator when imposing midterm sentence after defendant presented "super mitigant" evidence under PC…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Rodriguez
Case #: D078421
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/22/2021

Ameliorative amendments to Penal Code section 667.5 are not retroactive to final judgments even where the defendant is sentenced on a new offense that results in an aggregate sentence that includes the prior judgment. Defendant was sentenced in Case A to 13 years 4 months, including a one-year prior prison term enhancement under former section 667.5, subdivision (b). The conviction in Case A was affirmed on appeal and the judgment became final. In Case B, in a separate proceeding, the court imposed a determinate prison term to run consecutively with the remaining term in Case A. The…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Harris
Case #: C079470
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/23/2018

A motion to recall the remittitur is not the appropriate procedural vehicle to reopen a final case in order to argue the application of amendments to Penal Code section 12022.53 (Senate Bill No. 620). Harris was convicted of the first degree murder of her husband. A gun use enhancement was found true (Pen. Code, § 12022.53). Her conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and her case became final in early 2017. In October 2017, Senate Bill No. 620 amended Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h) to provide trial courts the discretion to strike gun use enhancements in the interest of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sawyers
Case #: B266897
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/26/2017

Three Strikes sentence reversed where charging document failed to give notice that defendant was subject to a Three Strikes life sentence. Sawyers was convicted of first degree murder, gun use, and other offenses based on an incident where he and fellow gang members shot into a rival gang member's house, killing an elderly man. As to the murder, the trial court sentenced Sawyers to 25-years-to-life, doubled due to a serious felony prior, plus 25-years-to-life for the gun use. On appeal, Sawyers argued the Three Strikes sentence was illegal because the information had failed to allege his prior offense was a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wilford
Case #: D069888
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/12/2017

Under the facts of this case, defendant's sentence under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1) violated due process because there was no indication in the information that he faced the possibility of a sentence under this subdivision. Wilford attacked his girlfriend on multiple occasions and was convicted by a jury of two counts of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and related offenses. As to the corporal injury counts (counts 5 and 6), the trial court found Wilford had suffered a prior assault conviction within seven years of the current offenses (Pen. Code, §…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Epperson
Case #: A145868
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/09/2017

Pursuant to Penal Code section 664, the penalty for attempted first degree residential robbery in concert is one-half the term set forth in section 213, subdivision (a)(1)(A). A jury convicted Epperson and his two codefendants of a number of offenses, including four counts of attempted first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211, 212.5). The jury also found that the attempted robberies were committed in concert with two or more persons. (Pen. Code, § 213, subd. (a)(1)(A).) With respect to the attempted robberies, the trial court sentenced Epperson to consecutive one-year subordinate terms calculated as one-third of half the mid-term…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Navarette
Case #: F069534
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/27/2016

Mexican murder conviction is not a serious felony under California law. Navarette was convicted of a number of offenses arising from a domestic incident with his ex-girlfriend. A prior serious felony enhancement and a strike prior were found true based on Navarette's 2006 murder conviction in Mexico. Navarette appealed, arguing that the Mexican offense did not include all the elements of murder in California and therefore the evidence was insufficient to support the prior serious felony enhancement and strike prior. Held: Reversed. "To qualify as a serious felony, a conviction from another jurisdiction must involve conduct that would qualify as…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Padilla
Case #: B265614
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/25/2016

Remand for resentencing appropriate for juvenile homicide offender because trial court did not have benefit of Montgomery v. Lousiana (2016) 577 U.S. ___ [136 S.Ct. 718], when it found LWOP sentence was appropriate under Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. ___ [132 S.Ct. 2455]. Padilla was sentenced to LWOP for a murder he committed when he was 16 years old. He sought resentencing after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited mandatory LWOP terms for juvenile homicide offenders and required consideration of the offender's youth and attendant characteristics before imposing an LWOP term. The…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lopez
Case #: B256146
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/25/2016

Juvenile nonhomicide offenders who were originally sentenced to LWOP can petition for recall of their sentences under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) even if their LWOP sentences were reduced pursuant to Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48. In 1993, Lopez and Chacon were sentenced to LWOP for an aggravated kidnapping they committed when they were 16 years old. They filed habeas petitions after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Graham, which held that the Eighth Amendment barred the imposition of LWOP on juvenile nonhomicide offenders. The trial court granted their petitions and reduced the LWOP sentences to life with…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jonathan R.
Case #: A145238
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/30/2016

Minor could not be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) for the same act. Jonathan R. stabbed a young man during a brawl. A juvenile delinquency petition was filed alleging violations of both Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon) and section 245, subdivision (a)(4) (assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury). The juvenile court found the allegations true. He appealed on a number of grounds, including that he could not…

View Full Summary