Secondary practice area
Fifth District holds that Penal Code section 292’s definitions of ‘acts of violence’ and ‘great bodily harm’ are constitutional under California Constitution article I, section 12, and that a no-bail order in a serious child sexual abuse case was supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Fifth District holds that the mere presence of peace officers attempting a routine traffic stop is not the ‘objective correlate’ required to support an imperfect self-defense instruction for a defendant whose only basis for self-defense was a delusion.
First District holds that the DMV’s revised hearing structure satisfies due process and rejects the broader ‘appearance of bias’ approach used in Romane v. DMV (now before the California Supreme Court).
Second District reverses first and second degree murder convictions because the trial court abused its discretion in excluding under Evidence Code section 352 a contemporaneous handwritten note relevant to the defendant’s provocation defense.
Second District holds that under Penal Code section 1237.1 a trial court retains jurisdiction during a pending appeal to correct presentence custody credit errors, and modifies the judgment to award two additional days of credit.
Fourth District holds that police violated the Fourth Amendment by ordering a man out of a residence at gunpoint without a warrant or probable cause and rejects the contrary 1985 Trudell decision.
Sixth District holds that impounding a suspended-license driver’s minivan solely to prevent further illegal driving violates the Fourth Amendment community caretaking doctrine and orders suppression of evidence from the resulting inventory search.
Fourth District holds that an Apple Pay account is a ‘financial account’ excluded from warrantless probation searches and orders suppression of bank evidence obtained through a warrant relying on the unlawful search.
Second District holds that a defendant in custody in another county did not willfully fail to appear for sentencing and that uncertified records from a Fresno court were inadmissible to prove a Cruz waiver violation.
First District holds that a trial court had no sua sponte duty to give a circumstantial evidence instruction in a felon-in-possession case where direct evidence linked the defendant to the cabin containing the guns and ammunition.