ÿWPCa  ¹P @:œ”Ð[ú„¤Ã*?;n‘!ßèÒ!í€[®ŠHé…ZÛÂæ:ˆË)ª#ÃOÃ~¨þÌ\ñø¦Úê6Ô`ÀWµ‡Ñ›JÕf¿0ÿ¦Ò@/?„+êæc„¹?q GЃÇR^ˆ$Üi+ £x„Wù÷ˆ¿@5tí™Î›jv7·â¼†•‘ Â\‡™”7]ùIŽHMs :þ¤ù«YØdbÀa·q®ÒŒ”i3͉ŠYó‹c4OÌG:¿z[b—ûGƒ´ä)L¤ž·8(j¨V7È5é…„´éOEó*8ÏbQÞíT68‰ßT“?@…8¦´šŒ~±DÓAÆkÕ GUÐV4©”×÷2QE—ª.Œ)8b«%74O»“_ *”Õ0c“¸qRÙ‰…É¡YKB l]%70Ö«p‹ÔB Ý’qEöè ñè±f®ÈÜW¿ÿÊ~F{Œâa¢ãC’yÑ>¶Çh¾Y­ðR$—sÎóÏ?ŠöÓóH÷ȧK”Q Zú)7Ê™:èý÷`/¡a~L§äP„vôtZß#ÈÅד÷³ľ9ÁÚõ>[\éÂM¢¦çNi¤ßS©CÐ"3ܬ—TñhâÉQ<Íý"7'@‰„=5„NÍ+)\¨¥âcÙ°¸vZ#!ìUN  %[ 0(a^ ‰w@•4Õéø múú B                                                                             D3. ˜HP LaserJet 5Si,ü,,,,,ü0(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡¬š=/‰ UUUUUUDDˆò.s\BackuÄ&Š3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ d 'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ8€ž XdðdÈ8Ñà@&ìàò òWINS€200ññ1ññññ0ññó óˆÐ ° ÐÌò òÓ  Óà  àNeil€Morseó ó€scored€a€victory€in€the€California€Supreme€Court€in€òòPeople€v.€SengpadychithóóÐ à Ð(2001)€26€Cal.4th€316.€€The€client€was€convicted€of€attempted,€premeditated€murder€at€a€jury€trial.€ÏA€gang€enhancement€was€found€true.€€In€reversing€the€Court€of€Appealððs€Ô_ÔaffirmanceÔ_Ô€of€the€gangÏenhancement,€the€Supreme€Court€promulgated€two€new€rules:€€(1)€the€primary€activities€element€ofÏthe€gang€enhancement€statute€requires€proof€that€the€gang€has€ð ðconsistently€and€repeatedlyððÏcommitted€the€crimes€specified€in€the€statute;€and€(2)€if€the€effect€of€a€true€finding€on€anÏenhancement€is€to€increase€the€defendantððs€sentence€beyond€the€maximum€for€the€underlyingÏconviction,€an€instructional€error€regarding€the€enhancement€constitutes€federal€constitutional€error.ÌÌà  àò òJill€Lansingó ó€obtained€a€hard€earned€triumph€in€òòÔ_ÔInÔ_Ô€re€Bobby€H.óó,€H019459.€€The€client€wasÐ P  Ðat€a€party€when€gunshots€were€fired.€€Some€people€at€the€party€told€officers€that€the€client€shot€theÏgun.€€On€the€advice€of€counsel,€the€client€pled€no€contest.€€In€a€habeas€petition,€claims€of€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€and€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€were€raised.€€It€was€shown€that€severalÏwitnesses€identified€the€client€out€of€fear€that€the€gang€of€the€real€gunman€would€retaliate.€ÏNumerous€witnesses€were€available€who€would€have€testified€that€they€were€with€the€client€and€heÏdid€not€possess€or€shoot€a€gun.€€Other€witnesses€were€available€to€testify€that€the€client€was€notÏinvolved€in€gangs,€did€not€possess€a€gun€and€would€not€commit€the€charged€crimes.€€Defense€counselÏwas€unprepared€to€present€these€witnesses.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€summarily€denied€the€writ€petition.€ÏAfter€a€petition€for€review€was€filed,€the€Attorney€General€conceded€that€the€petition€stated€a€primaÏfacie€case€for€relief.€€The€Supreme€Court€issued€an€Ô_ÔOSCÔ_Ô.€€Back€in€the€trial€court,€the€habeas€petitionÏwas€granted€and€the€charges€were€later€dismissed.ÌÌà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€Richard€Ô_ÔCarrascoÔ_Ôóó,€H018722,€appellant€was€convicted€of€murder,€eight€countsÐ 0€ Ðof€forcible€rape,€and€two€counts€of€first€degree€robbery,€among€other€things.€€He€was€sentenced€toÏserve€136€years€to€life.€€ò òKyle€Geeó ó€convinced€the€court€to€reverse€the€conviction€for€failure€to€grantÐ ` Ðappellantððs€motion€for€€continuance€one€month€after€his€òòÔ_ÔFarettaÔ_Ôóó€motion€was€granted.€€In€July€1994,Ð P Ðthe€prosecution€filed€a€30„count€indictment€against€appellant.€€€The€public€defender€was€grantedÏnumerous€continuances€and€eventually€declared€a€conflict.€€A€new€attorney€was€appointed€forÏappellant,€and€there€were€further€continuances.€€None€of€the€continuances€appeared€to€be€the€faultÏof€appellant€himself.€€€Trial€counselððs€file€was€described€as€voluminous.€€On€August€26,€1997,€at€aÏreadiness€conference,€appellant€moved€to€represent€himself,€which€was€granted,€but€his€motion€forÏa€one€month€continuance€of€the€jury€trial€was€denied€pending€a€written€motion.€€On€September€15,Ïthe€day€of€jury€trial,€the€court€denied€appellantððs€written€motion€for€a€two€month€continuance.€ÏAppellant€described€the€voluminous€and€complex€issues,€and€told€the€court€that€he€was€given€the€fileÏonly€two€weeks€earlier.€Appellant€eventually€agreed€to€reappointment€of€counsel.€€After€several€moreÏmonths€of€delays,€the€trial€began.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€ruled€appellant€did€not€waive€the€issue€byÏacquiescing€to€representation;€it€was€his€only€option.€€The€failure€to€grant€a€continuance€deprivedÏappellant€of€his€due€process€right€to€adequately€prepare€a€defense.€€ÌÌà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€William€Terry€Lawrenceóó,€H017840,€the€client€was€convicted€of€two€felonyÐ  +p&) Ðcounts€and€one€misdemeanor€count€of€child€molest€(Pen.€Code,€ðð€647.6,€subds.€(a)€and€(c)(1)).€€HeÐ ,`'* Ðsuccessfully€moved€to€represent€himself€but€later€requested€counsel€be€appointed€to€represent€him.ÏThe€court€refused€and€the€client€lost€the€jury€trial.€€The€Attorney€General€argued€the€client€was€beingÏmanipulative€as€indicated€by€the€continuances€he€requested.€€ò òAlex€Greenó ó€successfully€argued€€theÐ à Ðcontinuances€were€granted€because€the€client€expressed€inability€to€adequately€prepare€for€trial€whileÏin€custody€which€was€also€why€he€repeatedly€requested€reappointment€of€counsel.€€The€request€forÏcounsel€was€timely,€even€though€the€request€was€made€only€five€days€before€the€scheduled€jury€trial,Ïbecause€the€court€granted€the€clientððs€request€for€a€continuance.à È àThe€misuse€of€expert€testimonyÐ P   Ðin€a€child€molest€trial€led€to€a€reversal€in€òòPeople€v.€Felix€Ô_ÔPelayoÔ_Ôóó,€H019200.€€Defendant€was€convictedÐ @  Ðof€violating€Penal€Code€section€288.5.€€His€14€year€old€daughter€accused€him€of€molesting€her€forÏa€year.€€Her€story€was€corroborated€by€her€brother€and€two€friends.€€Later,€it€was€revealed€that€theÏdaughter€and€her€brother€fabricated€the€story€to€get€rid€of€the€defendant€because€they€resented€hisÏstrict€disciplining.€€The€two€friends€also€admitted€they€lied€at€the€daughterððs€request.€€Faced€with€fourÏrecanting€witnesses,€the€prosecution€presented€an€expert€witness€on€child€sex€abuse€accommodationÏsyndrome.€€Ô_ÔCSAASÔ_Ô€evidence€is€admissible€only€to€show€why€victims€of€molest€often€behave€inÏcertain€counter„intuitive€ways.€€(òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔBowkerÔ_Ôóó€(1988)€203€Cal.App.3d€385,€391.)€€However,€theÐ Ð  Ðdefense€never€attacked€the€daughter€for€behaving€in€a€manner€inconsistent€with€that€of€a€molestÏvictim.€€Instead,€the€expert€testified€that€victims€of€molestation€often€act€out€which€would€result€inÏfrequent€disciplining€and€99.7%€of€all€molest€allegations€are€true.€€Ô_ÔCSAASÔ_Ô€evidence€is€inadmissibleÏas€a€predictor€of€child€molest.€€ò òEric€Weaveró ó€argued€the€misuse€of€the€expert€witness€so€prejudicedÐ à Ðthe€case€that€retrial€was€required.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€agreed.Ìñ ñÌñ ñà  àA€reversal€in€a€three€strikes€case€was€obtained€by€ò òVictoria€H.€Staffordó ó€in€òòPeople€v.Ð `° ÐFrederick€Antonio€Brownóó,€H018501.€€After€jury€trial,€the€client€was€convicted€of€receiving€stolenÐ P  Ðproperty€(Pen.€Code,€ðð€496)€and€it€was€found€true€he€suffered€four€prior€strike€convictions€(Pen.ÏCode,€ðð€1170.12)€and€a€prior€prison€commitment€(Pen.€Code,€ðð€667.5,€subd.€(b)).€€€He€was€sentencedÏto€26€years€to€life€in€prison.€€A€red€pickup€was€parked€in€a€public€lot€for€as€long€as€a€year.€€It€wasÏvery€dirty,€covered€with€bird€droppings,€and€had€many€dents€on€it.€€€The€client€believed€the€pickupÏwas€abandoned.€€He€arranged€to€have€it€towed€to€a€different€location,€where€he€installed€new€partsÏand€got€it€running€again.€€In€fact€the€pickup€belonged€to€a€local€business.€€The€keys€were€lost,€so€itÏjust€sat€there.€€Appellant€requested€an€instruction€on€mistake€of€fact€and€a€special€instruction€that€aÏdefendant€who€reasonably€and€honestly€believes€property€is€abandoned€lacks€felonious€intent.€Ï(òòPeople€v.€Navarroóó€(1979)€99€Cal.App.3d€Supp.€1.)€€The€court€refused€the€instructions.€€DuringÐ À! Ðdeliberations,€the€jury€asked€what€if€the€property€was€stolen€but€the€defendant€believed€it€to€beÏabandoned.€€Over€objection,€the€court€instructed€the€jury€pursuant€to€Penal€Code€section€485,€theftÏof€lost€property.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€The€requested€instructions€were€a€correct€statementÏof€the€law€and€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€instructions.€€Given€the€juryððs€question,Ïthe€absence€of€the€omitted€instructions€was€prejudicial.€€On€retrial,€the€defendant€was€acquitted.€ññÌÌññà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€Claude€Milleróó,€H018095,€the€defendant€was€convicted€in€a€three€strikes€case€andÐ P( #& Ðsentenced€to€43€years€to€life.€€On€appeal,€ò òCliff€Gardneró ó€successfully€argued€there€was€insufficientÐ @)$' Ðevidence€that€two€out„of„state€priors€qualified€as€strikes€or€as€667(a)€five€year€enhancements.€€OnÏremand,€the€client€was€sentenced€to€a€determinate€term€of€20€years,€8€months.à x àÐ  +p&) Ðñ ññ ñ\ñ ññ ñññÐ ,`'* Ðññà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€Scott€Placeóó,€H016818,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€prison€for€25€€years€to€lifeÐ ° Ðfor€a€conviction€of€felony€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€with€two€prior€strikes.€€In€a€habeas€petition,€ò òJonathan€Ô_ÔSoglinÔ_Ôó óÐ  ð Ðconvinced€the€court€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€objecting€to€multiple€levels€of€hearsayÏin€the€probation€report€used€to€prove€one€of€the€alleged€strikes€involved€personal€use€of€a€weapon.€ÏUpon€Ô_ÔresentencingÔ_Ô,€appellant€received€a€six€year€sentence.€ÌññÌññà  àò òKyle€Geeó ó€also€won€a€reversal€in€a€murder€conviction.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔCrankeÔ_Ôóó,€H018245,€theÐ P   Ðdefendant€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder.€€Reversal€was€required€because€the€courtÏcommitted€òòPeople€v.€Irelandóó€(1969)€70€Cal.2d€522€error€by€instructing€on€felony€murder€when€theÐ 0 € Ðclient€was€charged€with€second€degree€murder€and€assault€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€there€was€noÏother€felony€to€serve€as€a€predicate€crime.€€ÌññÌññà  àIn€the€published€case€of€òòIn€re€Jose€H.óó€€(2000)€77€Cal.App.4th€1090,€argued€by€ò òEdwardÐ ð@  ÐMahleró ó,€the€court€ruled€a€juvenile€court€cannot€commit€a€minor€to€county€jail.€Ð à0  ÐññÌññà  àStaff€attorney€ò òVicki€Ô_ÔFirstmanÔ_Ôó ó€won€an€appeal€allowing€the€defendant€to€withdraw€from€a€pleaÐ À Ðbargain€based€on€the€grounds€that€he€was€erroneously€advised€that€his€conviction€would€not€qualifyÏas€a€strike.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Trinidad€Ô_ÔOntiverosÔ_Ôóó,€H019856,€appellant€pled€no€contest€to€two€counts€ofÐ  ð Ðviolating€Penal€Code€section€245€and€a€personal€weapon€use€enhancement€as€to€count€two.€€The€Ïagreement€was€that€appellant€would€suffer€only€one€strike€from€the€plea.€€However,€the€recordÏsupported€a€finding€that€both€counts€constituted€strikes.€€Appellant€was€allowed€to€withdraw€his€plea.ÌññÌññà  àExecutive€Director€ò òMichael€Ô_ÔKresserÔ_Ôó ó€was€victorious€in€òòPeople€v.€Floresóó,€H020078.€TheÐ P  Ðdefendant€was€convicted€of€Ô_ÔADWÔ_Ô€with€a€Ô_ÔGBIÔ_Ô€enhancement€stemming€from€a€melee.€€Two€priorÏstrike€convictions€were€found€true.€€Defendant€moved€for€a€new€trial,€demonstrating€due€diligenceÏin€trying€to€obtain€an€eyewitness€to€the€melee.€€The€witness€was€not€located€until€after€the€trial,€andÏthe€witness€would€have€presented€testimony€exonerating€defendant.€€The€court€granted€a€new€trialÏand€the€prosecution€appealed.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€ruled€in€favor€of€the€defendant,€stating€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€ordering€a€new€trial€based€on€significant€new€exculpatoryÏevidence.ÌññÌññà  àStaff€attorney€ò òWilliam€Robinsonó ó€won€the€appeal€of€òòPeople€v.€Roderickóó€òòÔ_ÔMcGheeÔ_Ôóó,€H020408.€Ð À! ÐAppellant€pled€no€contest€to€charges€arising€from€the€use€of€a€counterfeit€credit€card€at€a€departmentÏstore.€€The€understanding€was€that€appellant€would€be€sentenced€to€four€years€and€eight€months€inÏprison.€€After€entering€the€plea,€the€court€allowed€appellant€to€remain€out€of€custody€€until€sentencingÏbut€warned€him€that€if€he€did€not€appear€for€sentencing,€he€could€face€a€maximum€sentence€of€12Ïyears.€€Appellant€agreed€to€the€courtððs€condition.€€Appellant€failed€to€appear€for€sentencing.€€WhenÏhe€did€appear,€the€court€sentenced€appellant€to€12€years€and€8€months.€€The€court€denied€appellantððsÏmotion€to€withdraw€his€plea.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€The€motion€to€withdraw€the€plea€wasÏcognizable€without€a€certificate€of€probable€cause€because€appellant€was€attempting€to€enforce€a€pleaÏbargain,€not€attack€the€validity€of€the€bargain.€€The€trial€court€should€have€allowed€appellant€toÏwithdraw€his€plea€if€it€was€not€willing€to€sentence€him€to€the€agreed€upon€sentence.€ÌññÐ ,`'* Ðññà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔInÔ_Ô€re€William€Q.óó,€H019165,€ò òÔ_ÔTuttiÔ_Ô€Hackingó ó€successfully€argued€that€a€condition€of€juvenileÐ ° Ðprobation€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôy]ourÔ_Ô€associates€are€to€be€approved€by€your€Probation€Officer€and€yourÏparent(s)/guardianðð€and€ð ð[Ô_Ôy]ouÔ_Ô€shall€not€possess,€wear,€use€or€display€any€item€prohibited€by€theÏProbation€Officerðð€amounted€to€an€illegal€delegation€of€authority€to€the€probation€officer€toÏdetermine€appellantððs€associates,€articles€of€clothing,€and€possessions.€€ÌññÌññà  àò òDon€Tickleó ó€convinced€the€court€to€reverse€the€denial€of€a€suppression€motion.€€In€òòPeople€v.Ð P   ÐDaniel€Villalobosóó,€H018911,€the€defendant€was€stopped€for€driving€a€car€with€a€tinted€rear€window.€Ð @  ÐAfter€the€officer€could€not€verify€defendantððs€identity,€he€searched€the€car€and€foundÏmethamphetamine.€However,€not€all€window€tinting€is€illegal.€(See€Veh.€Code,€section€26708.5.)€ÏWithout€more,€merely€observing€tinted€windows€is€not€enough€to€stop€a€car.€€(òòPeople€v.€ButleróóÐ `  Ð(1988)€202€Cal.App.3d€602,€607.)€€The€court€further€ruled€that€the€tinting€of€the€rear€middle€brakeÏlight€is€not€enough€for€a€detention.€€The€conviction€was€reversed.€ÌññÌññà  àIn€the€dependency€case€of€òòIn€re€Jeremiah€R.óó,€H020431€and€H020656,€the€juvenile€courtÐ Ð  Ðremoved€the€minor€from€the€mother,€who€was€not€living€with€or€married€to€the€biological€father.€ÏThe€biological€father€filed€a€Welfare€and€Institutions€Code€section€388€petition€to€establish€paternity.€ÏThe€court€refused€to€consider€the€petition€and€eventually€terminated€parental€rights.€€In€aÏconsolidated€appeal,€the€Sixth€District€reversed,€ruling€the€juvenile€court€erred€in€refusing€to€considerÏthe€fatherððs€petition.€The€mother€successfully€joined€in€the€fatherððs€argument.€€ò òMara€Carmanó óÐ €Ð Ðrepresented€the€father€and€ò òJanet€Sherwood€ó órepresented€the€motherÐ pÀ ÐññÌññà  àCongratulations€to€ò òMaureen€Ô_ÔKeaneyÔ_Ôó ó€for€a€victory€in€a€dependency€case.€€In€òòÔ_ÔInÔ_Ô€re€MadisonÐ P  ÐM.óó,€H019591,€a€3€year€old€minor€was€in€the€midst€of€an€informal€custody€dispute€between€theÐ @ Ðmaternal€grandparents€and€the€stepfather.€€The€maternal€grandparents€alleged€the€minor€wasÏmolested.€€The€minor€was€questioned€by€a€social€worker€and€she€reportedly€said€she€was€touchedÏin€the€pee„pee€by€the€stepfather.€€The€minor€never€made€these€allegations€before€or€after.€€The€CourtÏof€Appeal€ruled€that€because€the€minor€was€incompetent€as€a€witness,€her€hearsay€statements€wereÏadmissible€under€the€child€dependency€hearsay€exception€if€there€were€specific€findings€ofÏcorroboration.€€(Welf.€&€Inst.€Code,€€355;€òòIn€re€Lucero€L.óó€(2000)€22€Cal.4th€1227.)€€Because€theÐ à0 Ðjuvenile€court€failed€to€make€specific€findings€of€corroboration,€the€finding€of€jurisdiction€wasÏreversed.€€Upon€remand,€the€juvenile€court€was€ordered€to€consider€whether€the€hearsay€statementÏcontained€sufficient€indicia€of€reliability.€€ÌññÌññà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€Augustinóó,€H019189,€a€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty€on€13€counts€of€lewdÐ $à" Ðconduct,€including€anal€intercourse,€with€a€minor.€€(Pen.€Code,€ðð€288,€subd.€(a).)€€Defendant€hadÏretained€an€expert€witness€to€testify€that€the€source€of€injuries€to€the€minorððs€anus€could€have€beenÏfrom€irritable€bowel€syndrome,€an€ailment€from€which€the€minor€undisputedly€suffered.€€The€expertÏwitness€testified€at€a€pretrial€hearing€to€verify€she€was€qualified€to€testify.€€However,€she€refused€toÏtestify€at€trial.€€The€reasons€were€unclear.€€The€witness€claimed€she€was€provided€additional€medicalÏrecords€after€the€trial€began€which€would€have€ruled€out€irritable€bowel€syndrome€as€the€source€ofÏthe€minorððs€injuries.€€There€was€also€evidence€the€witness€had€been€upset€over€late€payment€of€fees.€ÏAfter€some€continuances,€defendant€was€forced€to€close€the€defense€case€without€the€expert€witnessÐ ,`'* Ðtestifying.€€Defendant€moved€for€a€new€trial€on€the€non„statutory€grounds€that€due€to€events€beyondÏhis€control€he€was€deprived€of€a€fair€trial.€€The€trial€court€agreed€and€granted€a€new€trial.€€TheÏprosecution€appealed.€€After€determining€the€standard€of€review€was€abuse€of€discretion,€a€matterÏin€contention€on€appeal,€the€Court€of€Appeal€ruled€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€ThereÏwas€a€problem€in€that€the€witness€was€never€subpoenaed€until€after€it€was€clear€she€would€not€testify,Ïbut€ò òJoseph€Ô_ÔShippÔ_Ôó ó€pointed€out€the€defendant€correctly€believed€a€subpoena€was€not€necessary.€€Ð ` ° Ðññññ\ññññññÌññà  àIn€a€published€decision,€the€Court€of€Appeal€held€that€a€razor€blade€does€not€qualify€as€ð ðaÏrazor€with€an€unguarded€bladeðð€under€Penal€Code€section€626.10.€€(òòIn€re€Do€Ô_ÔKyungÔ_Ô€K.óó€(2001)€88Ð 0 € ÐCal.App.4th€583.)€€The€court€also€held€that€a€juvenile€court€order€declaring€informal€probation€is€anÏappealable€order€under€Welfare€and€Institutions€Code€section€800.€€ò òGloria€Cohenó ó€represented€theÐ `  Ðminor.Ìà  àÌ