Skip to content
Name: People v. Stamps
Case #: S255843
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 06/25/2020

Opinion By: Justice Corrigan (unanimous decision)
Defendant who entered a plea agreement for a specified term was not required to obtain a certificate of probable cause to claim on appeal that a new law applied to him retroactively. Stamps pleaded guilty to one count of first degree burglary and admitted a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)) for a stipulated nine-year prison sentence. He was sentenced in January 2018 according to the plea bargain, filed a notice of appeal, and sought a certificate of probable cause (CPC), which the trial court denied. In September…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gonzalez
Case #: D074500
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/26/2019

Defendant held in jail awaiting transfer to prison was "already serving" his sentence within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and trial court did not have discretion to impose a concurrent sentence in a new case. Gonzalez was granted probation in 2016 for a felony conviction. In 2017, he was again placed on probation for a new felony conviction (a strike offense). In 2018, he was found in violation of probation in both cases and was sentenced to prison. Later in 2018, while he was still in the local county jail pending delivery to state prison, he pleaded…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Zamora
Case #: E069607
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/14/2019

Case was remanded for trial court to exercise its discretion under Senate Bill No. 620 (granting courts discretion to dismiss firearm use enhancements), which was enacted after defendant's sentencing and applies retroactively in his case. A jury convicted Zamora of several offenses, and found true several enhancements, including firearm use enhancements under Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. He was sentenced to a determinate term of 20 years, plus 100 years to life. He appealed on various grounds. One issue was whether the case should be remanded for resentencing to permit the trial court to consider its discretion to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Franks
Case #: C085073
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/30/2019

In order for a Sixth Amendment violation to lie under McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) 584 U.S. _ [200 L.Ed.2d 821], a defendant must make his intention to maintain his innocence as a defense strategy clear to counsel. Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing his girlfriend. Prior to trial, defendant attempted to have defense counsel replaced, and refused to speak with counsel about the case. During closing argument, counsel conceded that defendant was with the victim when she was injured and was at the victim's house shortly before family members found her body. Counsel argued the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bipialaka
Case #: B285656
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 04/17/2019

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions for assault with a deadly weapon where he accelerated his vehicle towards another occupied car with the intent to frighten its occupants. After ingesting methamphetamine and alcohol, defendant led police on a car chase during which he targeted another car in an intersection, running the red light and accelerating as though intending to hit the other vehicle. The other driver braked, defendant swerved, and no collision occurred. He maintained on appeal that because he only intended to "freak out" the passengers in the other car, his conviction for using his car to commit an assault…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jones
Case #: C078623
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/28/2019

Although SB 1393 is retroactive in defendant's case, a remand for the trial court to consider striking the five-year prior serious felony enhancement is unnecessary because there is no possibility the trial court would strike the enhancement. Jones was convicted of several violent offenses, including attempted murder with premeditation. He admitted a prior felony conviction, which the trial court found to qualify as a prior serious felony and as a strike under Penal Code sections 667 and 1170.12. After the Court of Appeal issued an opinion in the case, the California Supreme Court directed the court to reconsider the matter…

View Full Summary