Skip to content
Name: People v. Ramirez
Case #: B289035
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/24/2019

Trial court properly denied defendant's request for pinpoint instructions related to voluntary manslaughter because one instruction was duplicative of CALCRIM No. 570 and another was argumentative. Ramirez shot Zambrano in the back during an altercation after the victim punched Ramirez's friend in the face during the friend's wedding reception. Ramirez was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. He appealed, challenging the trial court's failure to give pinpoint instructions requested by the defense. Held: Affirmed. Defendants have a right to an instruction pinpointing their defense theory, but the court may refuse incorrect, argumentative, duplicative, or…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Centeno
Case #: D073977
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/08/2019

Under Penal Code section 1203.06, a court cannot grant probation to someone who commits a robbery with a firearm even if the court had discretion to strike the firearm enhancement. Centeno entered a marijuana dispensary and, holding a gun, announced a robbery. He later escaped after being shot by an employee. Centeno pleaded guilty to assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and possession of marijuana. As to counts one and two, he admitted personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)). The…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Pearson
Case #: B293953
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/31/2019

On remand to consider whether to strike firearm use enhancement based on Senate Bill No. 620, trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to strike the enhancement. Pearson was convicted of murder along with several other crimes, and an enhancement for use of a firearm under Penal Code section 12022.53 was found true. Though his conviction was affirmed on his initial appeal, the Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the trial court to consider whether to strike the firearm enhancement under SB 620, which amended section 12022.53 by adding subdivision (h), giving the trial court…

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. Hernandez
Case #: B287551
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 04/15/2019

Because Senate Bill No. 620 (granting courts discretion to dismiss firearm use enhancements) is not retroactive to cases whose judgments were final on its effective date, defendant's appeal must be dismissed as from a nonappealable order. In 2016, Hernandez pleaded guilty to two felonies and admitted that he personally used a firearm in committing both offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subds. (a) & (d).) He appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed. After his judgment was final, Hernandez moved to strike the firearm enhancements on various grounds in December 2017 without mentioning SB 620, which granted trial courts discretion to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Morrison
Case #: A154092
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/11/2019

Under Penal Code section 1385, trial court had discretion to impose a lesser included firearm enhancement instead of the greater enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)), even though the lesser enhancement was not alleged. Morrison was convicted of first degree murder, and a firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)) was found true. The jury was not instructed on lesser included firearm enhancements (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (b), (c)). Morrison's sentence included 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. After Senate Bill No. 620 went into effect, the trial court denied a request to strike the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Johnson
Case #: B290213
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/04/2019

Because Senate Bill No. 620 (granting courts discretion to dismiss firearm use enhancements) is not retroactive to cases whose judgments were final on its effective date, defendant's appeal must be dismissed. In 2009, Johnson was convicted of second degree murder and a firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)) was found true. The judgment was final in 2011. In 2018, Johnson filed a motion to be resentenced within the provisions of SB 620, which amended Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 to grant the trial court discretion to dismiss or stay the firearm enhancements. The trial court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rocha
Case #: B290779
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 02/19/2019

Where a case was remanded to give the trial court an opportunity to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h) after the enactment of Senate Bill No. 620, defendant had a right to be present with counsel at a hearing. On his first appeal, Roach's conviction was affirmed and his case remanded "for the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 12022.53, subdivision (h)" based on SB 620. On remand, the case was called "for hearing on remittitur," but Rocha, his counsel, and the prosecutor were not present. The court issued a written order declining…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Johnson
Case #: D071011
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/05/2019

Trial court's failure to instruct the jury on second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter was not error because the evidence did not support these instructions. Johnson and Guthrie committed a "hit" on Canady in a barber shop, allegedly ordered by a drug kingpin named Grant. Johnson was convicted of first degree murder and a personal gun use enhancement was found true. Guthrie was also convicted of first degree murder and a serious felony prior was found true. A strike prior was found true as to each defendant. On appeal, Johnson challenged the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hargis
Case #: F076087
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/20/2019

Where Court of Appeal remanded case for a Franklin hearing, the trial court had jurisdiction to grant defendant's motion for a juvenile fitness/transfer hearing under Proposition 57 because the new law went into effect after the appellate opinion was filed, but before the case was final. In 2009, 16-year-old Hargis was convicted in criminal court of various offenses. His first appeal resulted in remand for a Franklin hearing to present facts for a future youthful parole hearing. The remittitur issued and the trial court set the matter for a hearing. Prior to the Franklin hearing, Proposition 57 was enacted and…

View Full Summary