Skip to content
Name: People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161
Case #: E080838
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/01/2023

In light of recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170.91, which permits military veterans to petition for resentencing, a veteran serving a stipulated sentence according to a plea agreement is not categorically ineligible for relief. In 2001, petitioner entered into a plea bargain, wherein he pleaded guilty to robbery and sentencing enhancements, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 28 years. In 2023, Harrell filed a second petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.91, which allows a convicted veteran suffering from a specified disorder as a result of his or her military service to petition for resentencing, so that the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Medrano
Case #: E070042
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/04/2019

A youth offender sentenced after People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 was not entitled to a remand to make a record of mitigating youth-related evidence, but may file a motion under Penal Code section 1203.01 pursuant to In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439. Medrano was sentenced to 25 years to life, plus seven years, for offenses committed when he was 19 years old. His sentencing occurred over a year after the Supreme Court decided People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, which held that when a juvenile offender receives an indeterminate life sentence, the offender must be "given…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Cook
Case #: G050907
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/10/2017

Petitioner, who committed homicide offenses when he was a minor, is entitled to a Franklin hearing to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to his youth. Cook's convictions for first degree murder, attempted premeditated murder, and personal use of a gun, were affirmed in 2009. By petition for writ of habeas corpus, Cook, who was 17 years old when he committed the offenses, claimed his sentence of 125 years to life was cruel and unusual punishment. The superior court denied the petition. The Court of Appeal found Cook's de facto LWOP term unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132…

View Full Summary
Name: Daire v. Lattimore
Case #: 12-55667
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/19/2015

State court did not unreasonably apply the Strickland standard when it concluded that defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to admit evidence of defendant's bipolar disorder as a mitigating factor during sentencing. Daire was convicted of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and she admitted three prior strike offenses. At sentencing, defense counsel made a Romero motion but he failed to offer available evidence of Daire's bipolar disorder as a mitigating factor. She was sentenced to 40-years-to-life under the Three Strikes law. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Daire sought state habeas relief arguing that her trial counsel…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hernandez
Case #: C067260
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/11/2014
Subsequent History: Review granted 4/1/2015: S224383

Juvenile offender's sentence of 61 years to life for nonhomicide offenses violates the Eighth Amendment despite the fact that Penal Code section 3501 (SB 260) allows him to seek parole after 25 years. Hernandez was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and other offenses committed when he was 16 years old. On appeal he challenged his 61-years-to-life sentence as cruel and unusual punishment. Held: Reversed and remanded. In Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, the Court found a sentence of LWOP imposed on a juvenile nonhomicide offender unconstitutional. The Court in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 183 L.Ed.2d 407,…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Heard
Case #: D063181
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/22/2014
Subsequent History: Review granted 4/30/2014: S216772

Juvenile's sentence of 23 years for voluntary manslaughter and 80 years to life for nonhomicide offenses constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Heard was convicted of two counts of attempted first degree murder, plus gang and gun enhancements, and pled guilty to a separate voluntary manslaughter with accompanying enhancements. The crimes were committed when Heard was 15-years-old and 16-years-old, respectively. He was sentenced to a determinate term of 23 years for the manslaughter and a consecutive indeterminate term of 80 years to life for the attempted murders. He filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that his sentence is equivalent to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Murray
Case #: B223024
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 02/06/2012

The categorical rule of Graham v. Florida (2010) __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2023, 2034, prohibiting no-parole life sentences for minors who are convicted of non-homicide offenses does not apply to a minor who commits multiple murders. Murray entered an "open plea" of no-contest to two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder and received a combined, consecutive sentence of 104 years to life. He was 17 years old at the time that he shot and killed two people and shot at, but missed, a third person. This appellate court specifically follows People v. Blackwell

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Nitschmann
Case #: B210291
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/03/2010

Although a defendant has a right of allocution prior to sentencing, the judge has no sua sponte duty to offer the defendant allocution and defendant forfeits the right if he does not offer to testify.
Appellant, a defendant with a lengthy record of criminal conduct, entered into a plea bargain whereby he pled guilty to assault likely to produce great bodily injury and admitted an infliction-of-personal injury enhancement, in exchange for a promise by the court of a five-year prison sentence. At the change of plea hearing, appellant agreed no other promises had been made him, stipulated to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Strohman
Case #: B134371
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/23/2000
Subsequent History: Petition for review den. 1/30/01

Disagreeing with People v. King (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 472, the Second District here held that receiving stolen property is not a necessarily included offense of operating a "chop shop" in violation of Vehicle Code sections 250, and 10801. Because a person may be guilty of operating a chop shop without committing the offense of receiving stolen property, because the property could have been acquired through fraud rather than theft or extortion, neither the statutory definitions nor the accusatory pleading bar appellant's convictions for both…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Grayson
Case #: C030812
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/29/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 12/13/00

While the trial court may have erred in failing to exclude, under Evidence Code section 352, a letter found among the effects of one of the defendants, neither defendant suffered any prejudice from its admission. The inference that one of the defendants wrote the letter was not inescapable, and in any event the letter suggested nothing that was not already in evidence. In sentencing appellant for both kidnaping and pandering, the trial court violated Penal Code section 654, subdivision (a). The sentence for pandering should have been stayed, and the Court of Appeal so modified the judgment.…

View Full Summary