recent victories

The unpublished opinions from the following cases can be viewed by visiting the Judicial Council Web site. The unpublished opinions remain on the Judicial Council Web site for 60 days from the date of the filing of the opinion.

2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011


Cases are posted on the Recent Victories page only after the remittitur issues.

February 2017

Pfeiffer, Rich — In re Ray M. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1038, D070157 — Notice for Welfare and Institutions Section 241.1 Hearing/Notice Under The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) — William Derek Quan, Judge and Juan Ulloa, Judges — Opinion by McConnell, P.J., with O’Rourke, J., Irion, J. Case reversed and remanded to juvenile court based on a lack of proper notice for the section 241.1 hearing and failure to properly notice per the ICWA if the child is found to be a dependent. Case involved a determination of whether minor should proceed as a dependent or a ward and involved a transfer between two counties. In November 2012, minor became a dependent based on abuse by his mother in Imperial County. In January 2016, minor was arrested and a petition was filed under section 602 in Kern County. Kern County conducted a hearing under section 241.1, determined minor should be deemed a ward and not a dependent, found allegations in the petition true, and transferred the case to Imperial County for disposition. In an appeal from the disposition, minor argued, County Counsel conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed the Kern County’s findings were in error because notice was not proper to minor’s dependency attorney or to the Imperial County court as required by section 241.1 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.512. In addition, the Imperial County court had the authority to revisit the Kern County court’s decision based on error because of the court’s inherent powers to change, modify or set aside an order as the judge deems proper. (I) LLF

Fisher, Lelah S. — In re Emily M. et al., D071185 — Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) — Michael Imhoff, Judge — Opinion by Huffman, J., with Aaron, J., Irion, J. County counsel stipulated to reversal for lack of proper ICWA notice. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directions to the superior court to complete ICWA notice. (I) MAC

Erickson, Kristin A./Morse, David M. — People v. Contreras et al., E062772 — Gang Enhancements — Mary E. Fuller, Judge — Opinion by Miller, J., with Ramirez, P.J., McKinster, J. Where appellants were sentenced to 25 years to life for first degree murder, the Court of Appeal vacated 10-year gang enhancements imposed under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(c), because that subdivision is inapplicable to a defendant sentenced to an indeterminate term; instead, the 15-year minimum parole term prescribed by section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5) applies to such defendants. Following People v. Lopez (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1002. (I) NFA

Brisbois, Patricia L. — People v. McCrumb, E063205 — Clerical Error — James S. Hawkins, Judge — Opinion by Codrington, J., with Hollenhorst, J., McKinster, J. The Court of Appeal ordered the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect appellant’s guilt was determined by a jury trial, not a bench trial. (I) LKH

Mahler, Edward — People v. Jordan, E063761 — Penal Code Section 1170.18 (Prop. 47) — Becky Dugan, Judge — Opinion by McKinster, J., with Codrington, J., Slough, J. Court of Appeal reversed the denial of appellant’s Prop. 47 petition, finding that appellant’s crime of burglary qualified as shoplifting even though the intended offense was theft by false pretenses and could be characterized as identity theft. In addition, given the recent Supreme Court case of Harris v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 984, the court rejected the People’s request for leave to withdraw from the plea bargain and to reinstate a dismissed charge of identity theft. The order denying appellant’s petition was reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to determine whether defendant poses an unreasonable risk to public safety. (I) HCC

Power, Richard — People v. Smith, E064022 — Correction of Abstract of Judgment — John M. Tomerlin, Judge — Opinion by Miller, J., with Ramirez, P. J., Slough, J. Attorney General conceded and the court ordered the abstract of judgment amended to correct several clerical errors. (I) BCT

Derrick, John — People v. Napoli III, E064437 — Penal Code Section 1170.18 (Prop. 47) — Becky Dugan, Judge — Opinion by Miller, J., with Ramirez, P.J., Slough, J. Trial court’s finding that appellant’s second degree burglary conviction was ineligible for a misdemeanor reduction because it involved the use of a stolen credit card is reversed and the matter is remanded for additional evidence related to the value of the stolen property. Penal Code section 459.5 includes theft by false pretenses and it does not matter that appellant might also have intended identity theft. (I) PMI

Wrubel, Sharon G. — People v. De Los Santos, E064715 — Parole Revocation Fine/Abstract of Judgment — Anthony R. Villalobos, Judge — Opinion by Codrington, J., with Ramirez, P.J., Miller, J. Parole revocation fine ordered stricken where appellant sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Abstract of judgment ordered corrected to reflect 1,304 days of pre-sentence credit for actual days served. (I) APJ

Johnson, Mark D. — People v. McGrail, E064766 — Penal Code Section 654 — Victoria E. Cameron, Judge — Opinion by Codrington, J., with Hollenhorst, J., Miller, J. Court of Appeal agreed that appellant’s eight-month consecutive sentence for driving/taking a vehicle must be stayed under Penal Code section 654 because the robbery, for which appellant was also sentenced, and the car theft were part of an indivisible course of conduct. (I) APJ

Schwartzberg, Richard — People v. Lepe, E065057 — Penal Code Section 654 — Jeffrey L. Gunther, Judge — Opinion by Codrington, J., with Hollenhorst, J., McKinster, J. Attorney General conceded and Court of Appeal agreed that sentence for driving with blood alcohol content of .08 or more must be stayed because offense based on same conduct as appellant’s driving under the influence conviction for which two-year sentence was imposed. (I) APJ

Gilmartin, Tiffany — In re Z.T., et al., E066408 — Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) — Timothy F. Freer, Judge — Opinion by Hollenhorst, J., with McKinster, J., Codrington, J. Mother argued and the Court of Appeal agreed the agency and trial court erred in failing to include the child’s great-great grandfather’s name and identifying information in the ICWA notice when the information was known to the agency. The appellate court ordered a limited remand to comply with the ICWA notice provisions. (A) LLF

Farber, William D. — People v. Holmes, E066458 — Penal Code Section 1170.18 (Prop. 47) — Becky Dugan, Judge — Opinion by Ramirez, P.J., with Miller, J., Slough, J. On People’s appeal, court affirmed grant of Prop. 47 relief. A jury had convicted appellant of burglary based on evidence he entered a bank to commit theft by cashing a forged $450 check. The People argued Prop. 47 relief was barred because: 1) appellant’s target crime amounted to identity theft, which is excepted from Prop. 47; and 2) a bank is not a “commercial establishment” within the meaning of section 490.5. The Court of Appeal found the identity theft exclusion did not apply because section 530.5 was neither alleged nor instructed to jurors. And the court found a bank is a “commercial establishment, as it had earlier held in People v. Albarca (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 475. (I) NFA

Cannon, Gregory L. — People v. Escamilla, G050619 — Double Jeopardy — Craig E. Robison and Sheila F. Hanson, Judges — Opinion by Aronson, J., with Bedsworth, J., Moore, J. Appellant was charged with eleven counts of lewd acts with a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). Counts 10 and 11 alleged separate acts committed during the same date range. They were labeled “ONE TIME” (count 10) and “A DIFFERENT TIME” (count 11). In the first trial, the jury could not reach a verdict on count 10, but acquitted appellant of count 11. Appellant was retried on count 10 and convicted based on the same evidence. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, concluding retrial of count 10 violated double jeopardy. Since the jury in the first trial was never instructed that “ONE TIME” referred to the first touching incident, it was impossible to discern which act the jury relied on in acquitting appellant of count 11. The Court of Appeal reversed Count 10 and associated special conditions and remanded the case for re-sentencing. (I) LKH

Martin, Arthur — People v. Nava, G050795 — Firearm Enhancement — James S. Hawkins, Judge — Opinion by Moore, J., with O’Leary, P.J., Fybel, J. Appellant argued, respondent conceded, and Court of Appeal agreed that two-year firearm enhancement imposed under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (d), applicable to drugs, was inapplicable since no drugs were involved in this case; the enhancement was modified to the applicable one-year under subdivision (a). (I) HCC

Carroll, Steven J. — People v. Armogeda, G051197 — Excess Custody Credits — Vickie L. Hix, Judge — Opinion by Ikola, J., with Rylaarsdam, J., Aronson, J. Court of Appeal held that after appellant’s 2011 felony sentence for possessing heroin was reduced to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18 while he was on PCRS, he was not entitled to have custody credits against his 1-year of parole imposed under section 1170.18, subdivision (d); however, he was entitled to have his excess custody credits offset any punitive fines pursuant to section 2900.5. (I) NFA

Booher, Robert — People v. Pinon (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 956, G051212 — Excess Custody Credits — Vickie Hix, Judge — Opinion by Ikola, J., with Moore, J., Fybel, J. On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the original holdings on the issues not decided by the Supreme Court: (1) appellant was still serving his sentence while on Post-Release Community Supervision; (2) appellant is subject to parole, but the parole term may not exceed the remaining time on defendant’s term of release superivision; and (3) appellant was exempt from registering as a drug offender. After requesting supplemental briefing, the Court of Appeal determined that excess custody credits may be used to reduce punitive fines. Post-judgment order reversed and the matter was remanded to the trial court to recalculate defendant’s maximum parole if necessary. (I) LAR

Ting, Allison H. — People v. Lopez, G051743 — Sufficiency of Evidence to Prove Strike Prior— David A. Hoffer, Judge — Opinion by O’Leary, P.J., with Fybel, J., Ikola, J. Strike prior stricken where only evidence in the record of prior conviction was that appellant pled guilty to the substantive gang participation offense (§186.22, subd. (a)), with no indication whether the offense was committed with another gang member, as required by People v. Rodriguez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1125, 1132. Remanded for retrial on the prior felony strike. (I) NFA

Bauguess, Susan S. — People v. Stipe, G051965 — Probation Condition — Thomas M. Goethals, Judge — Opinion by Fybel, J., with O’Leary, P.J., Ikola, J. Court minutes must be modified to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement granting the probation department the authority to implement the probation condition restricting association and to determine defendant’s living situation. As modified, the probation condition is not a blanket prohibition on any contact whatsoever between defendant and her felon/parolee husband. (I) PMI

Coleman, Jared G. — People v. Juarez, G052044 — Instructional Error — James Edward Rogan, Judge — Opinion by Bedsworth, J., with O’Leary, P.J., Fybel, J. Court of Appeal agreed with appellant’s argument that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that they should consider whether movement of the victim was merely incidental to an associated crime when determining whether the distance moved was substantial. In this case, the child victim was taken to a nearby laundromat while her home was burglarized. Court of Appeal found that the Chapman (Chapman v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 18) standard of review applies and the error was prejudicial in this case. (I) APJ

Adraktas, Stephanie M. — People v. Sharp, G052769 — Penal Code Section 654 — John S. Adams, Judge — Opinion by O’Leary, P.J., with Bedsworth, J., Fybel, J. The two-year concurrent term imposed on count two, possessing a controlled substance for sale was ordered stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 because it stemmed from the same act as count one, sale or transportation of a controlled substance. (A) BCT

January 2017

Katz, Paul J. — People v. Quirino, G050926 — Insufficient Evidence Gang Enhancements/Penal Code Section 1179.18 (Prop. 47)/Lab Analysis Fee — M. Marc Kelly, Judge — Opinion by Ikola, J., with Bedsworth, J., Fybel, J. Gang enhancements stricken where there was nothing in the record to suggest appellant intended to commit the gun and methamphetamine possession crimes for the benefit of his gang. Also, the reduction of a prison prior felony to a misdemeanor after appellant was sentenced, but before re-sentencing on remand, means that the prior conviction no longer supports a prison prior enhancement. Additionally, the lab analysis fee is not warranted where appellant was not convicted of any offense specified in the statute. (I) PMI

Conrad, Leslie — People v. Bell, E063234 — Juvenile Life Without Parole (LWOP) — Patrick F. Magers, Judge — Opinion by Ramirez, P.J., with Hollenhorst, J., Codrington, J. Appellant committed a first degree murder with special circumstances as a minor and received a LWOP sentence in 2005. In 2014, in response to appellant’s habeas petition, the California Supreme Court ordered the trial court to re-sentence him. (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 [listing five factors that must be considered before imposing life without parole for special circumstances murder when committed by a juvenile].) The trial court once again sentenced appellant to life without parole. The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider evidence of post-sentence rehabilitation. (People v. Lozano (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1137-1138.) The court also concluded appellant was not required to make an offer of proof to show prejudice. (I) HCC

Rich, Renee — People v. Demedio, E063425 — Sentencing — Angel M. Bermudez, Judge — Opinion by Ramirez, P.J., with McKinster, J., Slough, J. Attorney General conceded and Court of Appeal agreed that appellant is entitled to a second- strike sentence on his conviction for receipt of stolen property because it is not a serious or violent offense. In addition. the trial court erred by staying, rather than striking appellant’s prior prison term enhancements where the same prior convictions were the basis for serious felony five-year enhancements. (I) PMI

Barry, Leslie A. — In re Z.G., et al. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 705, G053232 — Bypass of Reunification Services — Gassia Apkarian, Judge — Opinion by Thompson, J., with O’Leary, P.J., Bedsworth, J. Minor-appellant argued the trial court erred in granting reunification services to the parents when the juvenile court found the allegation per section 300, subd. (f) [death of another child through neglect], true and the court should have applied the bypass provisions in section 361.5, subd. (b)(4) [death of another child through neglect]. Juvenile court held the parents should be given another chance based on their grief following the death of their child, but the appellate court held reunification had no chance of success since the parents had failed to do any reunification services in the year between the detention and jurisdiction/disposition hearings and reunification was not in the children’s best interest. (I) LLF

Klein, Jill M. — People v. Banks, E061755 — Fines/Fees/Abstract of Judgment — W. Charles Morgan, Judge — Opinion by McKinster, J., with Codrington, J., Slough, J. Various fines and fees not orally imposed by the court, but which appear on the abstract of judgment, were ordered stricken. The abstract of judgement was also ordered corrected to reflect the actual sentence imposed by the court. (I) BCT

Rogers, Tracy A. — People v. Swann, D069217 — Penal Code Section 1170.18 (Prop. 47) — Michael T. Smyth, Judge — Opinion by Huffman, J., with Benke, J., Haller, J. The order denying appellant’s Prop. 47 petition is reversed and matter is remanded with directions to grant the petition. Appellant’s second degree burglary conviction is eligible for reduction under Prop. 47, even though he entered a building intending to commit theft by false pretenses, not larceny. Court of Appeal adheres to the view that Penal Code section 459.5 includes thefts by means other than larceny. (I) LKH

Schuck, John F. — In re M.M., E064843 — Multiple Prosecutions — F. Paul Dickerson III, Judge — Opinion by Ramirez, P.J., with Hollenhorst, J., Miller, J. The juvenile court granted minor’s motion to dismiss a burglary petition under People v. Kellett (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, because minor had already admitted an allegation of receiving stolen property based upon the same incident and had been on probation for that offense for five months when the subsequent petition was filed. The People appealed the dismissal. Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal concluding that the People knew, or should have known, the offenses were related. In addition, both offenses were part of a continuous course of conduct and involved substantially overlapping evidence. (I) HCC

Siroka, Matthew A. — People v. Bravo, Jr., G051346 — Dual Convictions/Penal Code Section 1170.18 (Prop. 47) — Cheri T. Pham, Judge — Opinion by Thompson, J., with Bedsworth, J., Ikola, J. Appellant was convicted of two counts of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle under two distinct circumstances which elevated the offense to a felony. One conviction was for appellant’s possession of the firearm as a convicted felon, (§ 25850, subd. (c)(1)) and the other was for possession of the firearm when he knew or had reason to know it was stolen (§ 25850, subd. (c)(2)). Court of Appeal reversed one of the counts because it was error to split possession of a single loaded handgun into two separate charges. In addition, during the pendency of the appeal, a prior theft conviction which was the basis of a prior prison term enhancement in this case, was redesignated as a misdemeanor under Prop. 47. Since the prior theft conviction is now a misdemeanor and the current judgment is not final, the one-year prison term imposed for the prior theft conviction was ordered stricken. The court noted the Supreme Court has granted review on whether Prop. 47 retroactively invalidates a prior prison term enhancement. (I) BCT

Booher, Robert — People v. Hernandez, D069788 — Probation Condition — Daniel F. Link, Judge — Opinion by Huffman, J., with McConnell, P.J., Benke, J. Court of Appeal agreed that electronic search condition imposed in this case, and objected to by trial counsel, fails the test of reasonableness under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481. Trial court directed to strike the condition. (I) LAR

Staley, John L. — In re A.S., E065614 — Sealing Juvenile Records — Robert J. McIntyre, Judge — Opinion by Ramirez, P.J., with Hollenhorst, J., Miller, J. Trial court abused its discretion in refusing to seal minor's school records as it pertained to a dismissed petition for which sealing was sought under Welfare and Institutions Code 786, subdivision (e)(2) [discretionary sealing of records in the custody of a public agency]. Either the court's misunderstood its discretion if it erroneously believed a school district is not a public agency, or it simply failed to exercise its discretion in determining whether sealing the school records will promote the successful reentry and rehabilitation of minor. Reversed and remanded to allow the juvenile court to make a factual determination in the first instance regarding whether sealing the school records that refer to the juvenile court proceedings will promote minor's reentry and rehabilitation. In so doing, the opinion made note of the minor's improvement in grades and behavior, completion of community service, compliance with conditions of probation, and conduct as a law abiding citizen since August 2013. (I) AMJ

Bauguess, Susan S. — People v. Rivas, G051672 — Penal Code Section 1170.18, (Prop. 47) — Thomas A. Glazier, Judge — Opinion by Moore, J., with Bedsworth, J., Aronson, J. Appellant pled guilty to one count of felony possession of methamphetamine and one count of street terrorism. In 2015, he successfully petitioned the court under Prop. 47 to have his methamphetamine possession count reduced to a misdemeanor. However, the trial court denied his request to dismiss the street terrorism count, stating that a Prop. 47 petition was not an appropriate vehicle for seeking dismissal. The Court of Appeal ruled that the street terrorism count should be dismissed because the predicate felony required for the conviction had been re-classified as a misdemeanor for all purposes. Moreover, the court deemed it would be an unnecessary burden on defendants and the courts to force defendants in this position to pursue collateral relief via separate petition. Matter remanded for dismissal of the street terrorism conviction. (I) MCR

Webb, Reed — People v. Doria, E065879 — Penal Code Section 1170.18 (Prop. 47) — Becky Dugan, Judge — Opinion by Ramirez, P.J., with Miller, J., Codrington, J. In this People’s appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the reduction of respondent’s felony commercial burglary conviction under Prop. 47. Although respondent had a co-defendant with him in this petty theft, the People did not allege a conspiracy and so was precluded from doing so now. (I) LAR

De La Sota, Richard — People v. Rivera, E063917 — Sentencing — Graham A. Cribbs, Judge — Opinion by Ramirez, P.J., with Hollenhorst, J., Miller, J. One of appellant’s five-year serious felony prior enhancements must be stricken from both his determinate and indeterminate terms because two of the three serious felony prior convictions arose from the same case. A one-year prior prison term enhancement must also be stricken from both the determinate and indeterminate terms because it is based on the same conviction as one of the serious felony prior enhancements. (I) PMI

Hill, Melissa — People v. Barbarin, D068066 — Franklin Hearing — Christian F. Thierbach, Judge — Opinion by Huffman, J., with Nares, J., Haller, J. After a remand from the California Supreme Court, Court of Appeal remanded the case to the superior court for the limited purpose of providing appellant with an adequate opportunity to present mitigating information consistent with the dictates of People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 for a future youth-offender parole hearing. (I) PMI

Shaler, Susan K. — People v. Medel, E062247 — Penal Code Section 654 — Michael B. Donner, Judge — Opinion by Miller, J., with Ramirez, P.J., Codrington, J. Concurrent sentence for assault with a deadly weapon ordered stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 because the conviction was based upon the same act as the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction for which appellant was separately punished. (I) APJ

Hermansen, Kurt D. — People v. Galvan, Jr., E063887 — Penal Code Section 1170.18 (Prop. 47) — Becky Dugan, Judge — Opinion by Ramirez, P.J., with Hollenhorst, J., Miller, J. Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting Prop. 47 relief on respondent’s burglary conviction for entering EZ Check Cashing with the intent to cash a stolen $351.75 money order. Where the People did not contest respondent’s claim regarding value of the property nor challenge the sufficiency of the petition in the trial court, Court of Appeal found that the court did not abuse its discretion in reaching the merits of respondent’s petition. Because the People never charged an identity theft crime, Court of Appeal rejected the People’s claim on appeal that respondent was ineligible for Proposition 47 relief because he had committed an identity theft crime. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that the check-cashing establishment qualified as “commercial” under Prop. 47. (I) CBM

Covin, Randi — People v. Hudgins, E059858 — Prosecutorial Misconduct — Jeffrey L. Gunther, Judge — Opinion by Codrington, J., with Ramirez, P.J., Hollenhorst, J. The parties were allowed an additional 10-minute closing argument when jury indicated it was hung 6-to-6. During that time, the prosecutor not only appealed to the sympathy of the jury, arguing it should consider the impact of the crime on the victim’s family, the prosecutor urged the jury to return guilty verdicts because of the time invested in this trial and because more time would be wasted in retrying the case if the jury did not reach guilty verdicts. The court not only overruled the defense objections, it told the jury the arguments were not misconduct. Court of Appeal found that the arguments were misconduct and, where the evidence was close, the misconduct was prejudicial. Appellant’s special circumstance murder conviction and premeditated attempted murder conviction are reversed. (I) PMI

Torres, Steven A. — People v. Dominguez, G051747 — Resentencing — Kelly L. Hansen, Judge — Opinion by Moore, J., with Aronson, J., Ikola, J. Appellant was resentenced after the trial court reversed his conviction on nine of 24 counts of lewd act on a child under the age of 14. As part of the resentencing, the court violated double jeopardy protection by increasing the fines imposed under Penal Code sections 1202.4, 1202.45 and 290.3. The abstract of judgment also included an additional fine and a weapons prohibition provision that were not orally pronounced. Finally, appellant’s credits were incorrectly calculated on the abstract of judgment. Attorney General conceded all points. Case remanded to trial court to eliminate additional fines, strike weapon prohibition provision and give appellant additional credits. (I) MCR

King, Nancy J. — People v. Aguon et al., D064367 — Franklin Hearing — Joan P. Weber, Judge — Opinion by Huffman, J., with McConnell, P.J., Aaron, J. Appellant was convicted as a juvenile and sentenced to 50-years-to-life in state prison. However, under Penal Code section 3051, he is eligible for a youth-offender parole hearing after serving 25 years of his sentence. While appellant presented some mitigation evidence at the time of his sentencing, there was not then the same motivation and need to present information explaining the wide array of youth-related mitigating factors that there is in light of the holding in People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. Case remanded for appellant to create a record of mitigation evidence to be used at his youth-offender parole hearing. (I) MCR

Holzer, William G. — In re Haley, G053792 — Insufficient Evidence/Gang Offense — Gary S. Paer, Judge — Opinion by Bedsworth, J., with Fybel, J., Ikola, J. In People v. Rodriguez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1125, the Supreme Court determined a defendant cannot commit the crime of participation in a criminal street gang alone. Respondent conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed appellant’s 2005 convictions for this offense are not supported by sufficient evidence in light of the new Rodriguez opinion. Defendant’s petition granted; unsupported convictions reversed. (I) CBM

Jones, Cynthia M. — People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, D064986, S228258 — Penal Code Section 654 — Francis M. Devaney and Kathleen M. Lewis, Judges — Opinion by Cuéllar, J., with Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Corrigan, J., Liu, J., Kruger, J. Appellant was convicted of both carjacking and robbery based on the same forceful taking of a vehicle. The issue was whether the forceful taking of the vehicle –– the same taking that, according to the prosecution, accomplished the crimes of both robbery and carjacking –– constituted a single physical act subject to the prohibition on multiple punishment under section 654. Since the same action completed the actus reus for each of these two crimes, the court held that section 654 forbade punishment under both provisions. (I) HCC

Back to Top


Recent Victories: 2017
Recent Victories: 2016
Recent Victories: 2015
Recent Victories: 2014
Recent Victories: 2013
Recent Victories: 2012
Recent Victories: 2011

For lists from previous years, email staff attorney Anita Jog.


*The material found on this Web site is for informational purposes only. It should not be considered to be legal advice and is not guaranteed to be complete or up to date. Use of this Web site is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between the user and Appellate Defenders, Inc. (ADI) or any of the firm's attorneys. Readers should not rely upon or act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. See full disclaimer.