Secondary practice area
Fourth District holds that defense counsel’s brief administrative suspension from the State Bar for trust account reporting noncompliance during trial does not, by itself, establish a denial of the right to effective assistance of counsel.
First District reverses a juvenile court order transferring a 16-year-old murder defendant to adult court because the court did not apply the heightened amenability standards required by AB 2361 and SB 545.
Sixth District holds that even if a search of a deceased suspect’s phone violated the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, suppression is not required because officers acted in good-faith reliance on the mother’s consent.
Second District affirms convictions for the murder of a Pomona police officer and a separate assault, holding that hot pursuit and concern for family members justified the warrantless entry, but remands to correct determinate-term sentencing under Penal Code section 1170.1.
First District affirms a murder conviction but reverses a drive-by shooting conviction because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on grossly negligent discharge of a firearm as a lesser included offense.
Second District affirms denial of mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, with a notable concurrence sharply criticizing a recent Fourth District decision that overturned a similar denial.
Second District grants writ vacating mental health diversion in a violent hate-crime case, holding that the trial court must consider evidence of past treatment noncompliance when applying the public safety prong of Penal Code section 1001.36.
Fifth District holds (on transfer from the California Supreme Court) that trial courts may impose upper-term sentences based on California Rules of Court rule 4.421(b) factors derived from prior convictions, but vacates the prior-strike finding under People v. Fletcher.
The California Supreme Court holds that assault is not a lesser included offense of resisting an officer by force or violence under Penal Code section 69, because resistance does not require the present ability to inflict harm.
Fourth District reverses a five-year DVRO for the second time, holding the trial court again denied the incarcerated respondent meaningful access to the courts by issuing the order without addressing his request to appear telephonically.