’WPC' 6WbgƑā@@É_C? Ć`Ķ)Ė@ŲķnFé ”‹J˜§Ź¾ ~é÷E§G}5£¶‘‰ļ“y;ĆĶ ēŅžŪo—X'ŪeZŸobČŁq„(+č@H8¾īc±œxŸæ­µa½)ÄÄBnæ•÷Ó·ÜsŖ4F˜„Ę—Ō›ę|ę>ÅӒܝō Bcg‰ĒJžnP›•ŽzüoAē„÷,w³V75—ź„Õćŗov¾”vēDh! ‘±¢ż #šJŃżåy·‡¢,2w›Ø¾¹VSõ‚o.ƒtŠģyįH{fb \į‹#dD" [ćE{Oöš.ÅĄ»|Ø&<öŸp?Ņ\ ų–†ĻŖüFnĄĀʌ2ūZ6#7wc”ÓXéO6Lóē>Ą¢:ˆpĢ+@vōÓļ¹4wˆ.Ói-TßÖofż½¤Õ1ģĪļ†6W„yŻ*Y@jZ\uµ€óĢL2ć‰Ō—9ټŗŲÄ:3ŽīĶMG5ėßfüīZiæ“Ā&2ŒX5ֈ3ĪŠ‹d4–S¦–Ōē;ÕiH¢‘Ns«d¼ęę$H•iä‚]­57v9pPHq÷Ÿ ½A~€ĒŃē½›cĮE ŽU󞊔‹×h+rJś”ˁ`‚n•£,KO…v‡|Ü#!UN) %w 0(}^ „w@±4ń mN-/ 7 S i y “ ­ æĻ įķ 0NSi  0D™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™ B7Ż B7 CKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 0Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee D3©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© AKܘHP LaserJet 5Si,ä,,,,,ä0(ČhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($””ļ†"0ä •w–w—w˜w™wšw›Uœž—xG/-ūµ0news3|xž’U‹’ĄĄĄ SUFFICIENCYPRETRIALERRORSENTENCINGDEPENDENCYHABEASOTHERPRETRIALERRORSUFFICIENCY(ĶO$——Ō’ŌņņóóŌ’ŌSENTENCINGDEPENDENCYHABEASOTHER(3Æ$££Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Ż3ų’+0 ’’’d ’’’d d3÷’+0 d d dö’ĄĄĄd’’’d(3Æ$¢¢Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Ż‹Œ‹Œ'ö’dxdX°Aū’ °X C’’Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  ŻŌ_Ōņ ņšŃ8€|¾XdšdČ8Ńń”ńŌ4‚Ż °ŌŻ‚ĶOŻŌ’ŌņņŻ  ŻŌ5  Ōń”ńSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEń”ńŌ6lŌŻ‚ĶO€ƒŻóóŌ’ŌŻ  ŻŌ7Ż z®Ōń”ńŠ ° Šń•ńŌ4‚Ż °ŌŻ‚ĶOŻŌ’ŌņņŻ  ŻŌ5  Ōń•ńššPRETRIAL€AND€Ō_ŌPOSTTRIALŌ_Ō€MOTIONSń•ńŌ6UŌŻ‚ĶOiƒŻóóŌ’ŌŻ  ŻŌ7Ż N—Ōń•ńŠ  š Кšń–ńŌ4‚Ż °ŌŻ‚ĶOŻŌ’ŌņņŻ  ŻŌ5  Ōń–ńERROR€AT€TRIAL€OR€HEARINGń–ńŌ6eŌŻ‚ĶOyƒŻóóŌ’ŌŻ  ŻŌ7Ż Ā§Ōń–ńŠ ą Кšń—ńŌ4‚Ż °ŌŻ‚ĶOŻŌ’ŌņņŻ  ŻŌ5  Ōń—ńSENTENCINGń—ńŌ6NŌŻ‚ĶObƒŻóóŌ’ŌŻ  ŻŌ7Ż Ü Ōń—ńŠ €Š Šń˜ńŌ4‚Ż °ŌŻ‚ĶOŻŌ’ŌņņŻ  ŻŌ5  Ōń˜ńššDEPENDENCY€CASESń˜ńŌ6&ŌŻ‚ĶO:ƒŻóóŌ’ŌŻ  ŻŌ7Ż Ō hŌń˜ńŠ pĄ Кšń™ńŌ4‚Ż °ŌŻ‚ĶOŻŌ’ŌņņŻ  ŻŌ5  Ōń™ńHABEAS€ORDERS€TO€SHOW€CAUSE€ó óń™ńŌ6ŌŻ‚ĶOƒŻóóŌ’ŌŻ  ŻŌ7Ż \JŌń™ńŠ ` ° Šņ ņńšńŌ4‚Ż °ŌŻ‚ĶOŻŌ’ŌņņŻ  ŻŌ5  ŌńšńOTHERó óńšńŌ6ųŌŻ‚ĶO ƒŻóóŌ’ŌŻ  ŻŌ7Ż „:ŌńšńŠ P   ŠĢņ ņŌ% ‡ ŌSUFFICIENCYŌ%† ĶŌ€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óŠ 0 € ŠIn€re€Troy€S.€€(H023729)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Lori€QuickĢDate:€€February€27,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€a€student€in€a€continuation€school.€€He€was€in€a€classroom€with€about€15Ļother€students€who,€like€him,€had€been€expelled€from€their€original€school.€€Appellant€had€aĻhistory€of€making€threats€and€being€disruptive€in€class.€€On€one€particular€day,€he€was€disciplinedĻfor€being€disruptive.€€Appellant€said€to€a€group€of€classmates€that€he€would€kick€the€teacherššsĻŌ_ŌassŌ_Ō.€€The€teacher€overheard€the€comment.€€Appellant€was€charged€with€making€a€criminal€threatĻand€threatening€a€teacher€under€Penal€Code€sections€422€and€71.€€€The€Court€of€Appeal€held€thereĻwas€sufficient€evidence€of€a€criminal€threat€but€insufficient€evidence€of€violating€section€71,Ļbecause€that€section€requires€the€threat€to€be€communicated€directly€to€the€victim.ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Ō_ŌDavillaŌ_Ō€(H024237)ĢPanel€attorney:€Ō_ŌMarylouŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌHillbergŌ_ŌĢDate:€€Mach€27,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€used€a€false€contractorššs€license€number€to€secure€a€job€to€do€a€homeĻimprovement€project.€€He€was€forwarded€$750€and€did€no€work.€€He€was€convicted€of€using€aĻfalse€contractorššs€license€number€and€grand€theft€on€the€theory€he€embezzled€the€money.€€ThereĻwas€insufficient€evidence€he€embezzled€the€money€because€he€never€held€the€$750€in€trust.€Ļ(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_Ō)ĢĢĢIn€re€Paul€S.€(H02400)ĢPanel€attorney:€R.€Bruce€FinchĢDate:€March€27,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€a€minor€found€in€violation€of€his€juvenile€probation€and€committed€to€š štheĻRanchšš€for€a€minimum€of€five€months.€€Specifically,€he€possessed€gang€insignia.€€At€the€hearing,Ļtrial€counsel€and€the€court€were€under€the€impression€that€appellant€was€ordered€not€to€possessĻgang€paraphernalia.€€In€fact,€the€court€ordered€him€only€not€to€use€or€possess€graffiti€material€orĻassociate€with€known€gang€members.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€for€insufficient€evidence€ofŠ ,`'* ŠŌ_Ōviolating€the€conditions€of€probation.€€(Staff€attorney€Paul€Couenhoven)ĢĢĢIn€re€Ō_ŌAlejandroŌ_Ō€R.€€(H024622)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Jill€Ō_ŌFordyceŌ_ŌĢDate:€€April€16,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€juvenile€court€found€appellant€had€committed€a€kidnapping.€€On€Valentineššs€Day,€aĻ14€year€old€girl€was€playing€near€her€home.€€She€heard€someone€call€her€name,€and€she€noticedĻher€friend,€appellant,€sitting€in€the€back€of€a€two„door€car.€€The€engine€was€off€and€the€rightĻpassenger€door€was€open.€€She€leaned€in€and€spoke€with€appellant.€€Suddenly,€she€was€pulledĻinto€the€car,€though€appellant€did€not€pull€her€in.€€The€door€closed,€and€the€car€sped€off.€€She€hitĻthe€driver€in€the€head€which€resulted€in€the€car€being€driven€off€the€road.€€She€escaped€and€ranĻhome.€€She€had€known€appellant,€15€years€old,€for€six€years€and€he€has€never€been€mean€to€her.€ĻThe€driver,€age€20,€was€the€former€boyfriend€of€her€sister€and€the€father€of€the€sisterššs€baby.€€HeĻhad€attempted€to€force€himself€on€her€on€many€occasions;€once€he€locked€her€in€her€bedroom€andĻattempted€to€take€off€her€clothes.€€The€juvenile€court€found€appellant€aided€and€abetted€in€theĻkidnapping,€stating€that€he€certainly€did€nothing€to€help€her.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€held€there€wasĻinsufficient€evidence€appellant€knew€of€the€driverššs€criminal€design€when€he€called€her€name€orĻif€he€did€anything€to€assist€him.€€(Staff€attorney€William€Robinson)ĢĢĢIn€re€Ō_ŌGildardoŌ_Ō€M.€(H024566)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Gordon€ScottĢDate:€€April€22,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€found€to€have€committed€a€felony€sexual€battery,€among€other€things.€ĻAppellant€was€attracted€to€a€high€school€classmate,€and€it€appeared€she€was€attracted€to€him.€ĻOne€day€while€they€were€at€school,€he€led€her€to€walk€across€a€field€and€behind€some€bushes.€ĻAppellant€unzipped€his€pants€and€showed€his€penis.€€He€asked€her€to€perform€oral€sex€threeĻtimes,€but€she€refused.€€He€accepted€her€refusal.€€He€unzipped€her€sweatshirt€and€fondled€her€asĻhe€kissed€her.€€She€did€not€indicate€she€was€unwilling,€but€she€later€claimed€she€did€not€consent.€ĻThe€Court€of€Appeal€held€there€was€insufficient€evidence.€€Her€refusal€to€perform€oral€sex€didĻnot€show€she€was€unwilling€to€engage€in€any€sexual€activity.€€(Staff€attorney€Paul€Couenhoven)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Richard€Ō_ŌEverlyŌ_ŌĢPanel€attorney:€€Ō_ŌDemarrisŌ_Ō€EvansĢDate:€€September€23,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€and€Tate€committed€a€residential€burglary€while€Brown€waited€in€the€car.€ĻAppellant€and€Tate€had€walkie„talkies€so€that€they€can€communicate€during€the€crime.€€TheĻresident€came€home€and€caught€appellant€with€his€walkie„talkie.€€A€jury€convicted€him€ofŠ ,`'* Šresidential€burglary,€receiving€stolen€property,€and€possession€of€burglary€tools.€€The€court€ofĻappeal€reversed€the€conviction€for€possession€of€burglary€tools.€€Relying€on€ņņPeople€v.€GordonóóŠ  š Š(2001)€90€Cal.App.4th€1409,€the€court€held€that€walkie„talkies€were€not€the€type€of€burglary€toolsĻdescribed€in€Penal€Code€section€466.€€(Staff€attorney€Vicki€Firstman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Richard€Stevens€(H022866)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Arthur€DudleyĢDate:€€October€10,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€three€counts€of€kidnapping,€among€other€things.€€The€victimsĻworked€at€an€indoor€shooting€range€and€gun€retail€store.€€Appellant€entered€the€shop€and€rented€aĻhandgun.€€After€some€target€practice,€he€returned€to€the€shop€and€pointed€the€gun€at€the€victims,Ļthreatening€to€kill€them,€and€he€fired€two€shots€which€missed.€€He€ordered€them€to€the€front€ofĻthe€store€and€he€made€a€telephone€call€to€his€mother.€€After€completing€the€call,€he€ordered€themĻto€the€back€wall.€€He€then€left€the€store,€but€ordered€that€they€remain€in€the€store.€€Moments€later,Ļhe€returned€and€ordered€them€out€of€the€front€of€the€store€and€into€the€parking€lot.€€As€theyĻneared€an€alley,€about€17€feet€from€the€store,€one€of€the€victims€pulled€out€a€gun€and€shot€theĻdefendant.€€The€court€of€appeal€held€there€was€insufficient€Ō_ŌasportationŌ_Ō€to€support€the€kidnappingĻconvictions.€€The€distance€was€not€substantial€and€there€was€no€greater€risk€of€harm€in€or€out€ofĻthe€store€or€in€the€parking€lot.€€The€court€of€appeal€rejected€respondentššs€request€to€reduce€theĻconvictions€to€attempted€kidnapping€because€there€was€a€lack€of€evidence€of€specific€intent.€Ļ(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_Ō)ĢĢĢŌ_Ԛšņ ņŌ% ‡ ŌPRETRIALŌ_ŌŌ%†!Ō€AND€Ō_ŌPOSTTRIALŌ_Ō€MOTIONSó óŠ  p ŠPeople€v.€Ō_ŌJairoŌ_Ō€Rodriguez€(H023941)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Daniel€ByrneĢDate:€€February€28,€2003ĢĢą  ąPolice€officers€sought€to€execute€an€arrest€warrant€on€a€Fernando€Vargas.€€Officers€waitedĻat€an€apartment€where€they€believed€they€would€find€Vargas.€€Appellant€parked€in€front€of€theĻapartment€and€walked€in€the€building.€€Although€appellant€was€also€an€Hispanic€male€of€similarĻheight,€weight,€and€age,€he€was€different€in€several€distinctive€manners.€€Appellant€had€his€nameĻtattooed€on€his€arm,€while€Vargas€had€š šRIP,šš€š šSilent,šš€and€š šMt.€Viewšš€tattooed€on€his€arms.€ĻAppellant€was€detained,€although€the€officer€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€he€neverĻchecked€the€tattoos.€€During€the€detention,€the€officer€conducted€a€pat€search,€though€there€wasĻno€reasonable€cause€to€believe€he€was€armed.€€Also€during€the€detention,€the€officer€ran€a€warrantĻcheck€to€verify€his€identity,€but€a€warrant€check€would€not€have€served€this€purpose.€€It€wasĻduring€the€search€that€the€officer€found€drugs€on€appellant.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€held€the€motionĻto€suppress€evidence€should€have€been€granted€because€the€detention€was€unreasonable.€€(StaffĻattorney€Paul€Couenhoven)ĢŠ ,`'* ЇPeople€v.€Ō_ŌFredrucŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌGotfriedŌ_Ō€(H021456)ĢPanel€attorney:€Ō_ŌJeanineŌ_Ō€StrongĢDate:€€March€21,€2003ĢĢą  ąPolice€heard€from€an€informant€that€appellant€was€growing€marijuana€at€his€property€inĻrural€Monterey€county€and€selling€it€in€Santa€Cruz.€€One€night,€undercover€officers€walkedĻaround€the€perimeter€of€appellantššs€property€until€appellant€told€them€to€go€away.€€TheyĻconfirmed€his€address€and€that€he€owned€the€two€cars,€which€were€registered€in€Santa€Cruz.€ĻBased€on€this,€the€officers€sought€a€search€warrant€to€conduct€an€Ō_ŌinfaredŌ_Ō€imaging€scan.€€Based€onĻthe€Ō_ŌinfaredŌ_Ō€imaging€scan,€which€revealed€a€suspected€marijuana€farm,€officers€sought€a€secondĻsearch€warrant€to€physically€enter€and€search€his€residence€and€seize€the€evidence.€€In€a€publishedĻopinion,€the€Court€of€Appeal€held€the€evidence€should€have€suppressed€because€the€Ō_ŌinfaredŌ_Ō€scanĻconstituted€a€search€and€there€was€not€probable€cause€for€the€first€search€warrant.€€The€officersĻonly€confirmed€appellant€lived€at€a€certain€location€and€owned€two€cars.€€It€was€not€probativeĻthat€he€was€selling€drugs€in€Santa€Cruz€merely€because€his€cars€were€registered€there.€€It€was€notĻprobative€that€he€told€the€officers,€appearing€as€prowlers€at€night,€to€go€away.€€Further,€the€goodĻfaith€exception€did€not€save€the€search.€€A€reasonable€officer€would€have€realized€there€was€notĻprobable€cause€to€search€the€house€which€is€why€they€sought€permission€for€only€an€Ō_ŌinferedŌ_Ō€scanĻin€the€first€search.€€A€reasonable€officer€would€not€believe€he€or€she€could€conduct€an€Ō_ŌinferedŌ_ŌĻscan€with€less€than€probable€cause.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Alfredo€Ramirez€€(H023961)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Diana€Ō_ŌTeranŌ_ŌĢDate:€€August€5,€2003ĢĢą  ąDefendant€pled€guilty€to€residential€burglary€and€received€probation€on€condition€that€heĻserve€180€days€in€jail.€€Subsequently,€he€violated€probation€and€was€sentenced€to€serve€two€yearsĻin€prison.€€Defendant€was€not€a€United€States€citizen.€€Because€he€was€sentenced€to€serve€at€leastĻa€year€for€residential€burglary,€the€offense€qualifies€as€an€š šaggravated€felonyšš€for€immigrationĻpurposes.€€He€moved€to€withdraw€his€plea€because€trial€counsel€failed€to€properly€advise€him€ofĻhis€immigration€consequences.€€Former€trial€counsel€declared€that€he€did€not€advise€defendant€ofĻthe€immigration€consequences€because€he€did€not€know€defendant€was€not€a€United€StatesĻcitizen.€€He€later€submitting€a€declaration€that€he€did€not€specifically€recall€advising€defendant€ofĻimmigration€consequences€but€it€was€his€practice€to€do€so.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€andĻhe€appealed.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€Although€the€trial€court€properly€characterized€theĻprosecution€case€as€š šstrong,šš€the€amount€stolen€from€the€attached€garage€was€small€and€theĻchances€of€receiving€a€greater€sentence€had€he€gone€to€trial€was€minimal.€€Thus,€defendantššsĻdeclaration€that€he€would€not€have€pled€had€he€been€properly€advised€was€credible€and€there€wasĻa€chance€that€a€defense€attorney€could€have€negotiated€a€settlement€that€did€not€involve€anĻoffense€which€could€become€an€aggravated€felony.€€(Staff€attorney€Vicki€Firstman)ĢĢŠ ,`'* ŠPeople€v.€Joel€Tobias€€(H024254)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_ŌĢDate:€€August€12,€2003ĢĢą  ąOne€of€the€first€summary€reversals€following€ņņŌ_ŌStognerŌ_Ō€v.€Californiaóó€(2003)€123€S.Ct.€2446Š pĄ Šbecause€appellantššs€convictions€were€barred€by€the€ex€post€facto€clause.€ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Charles€Ō_ŌGlasperŌ_Ō€€(H023404)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Alan€Ō_ŌSiracoŌ_Ō€€ĢDate:€€October€31,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€after€jury€trial€of€transporting€cocaine€base,€and€possessing€it.€ĻAppellant€subpoenaed€the€jail€records€of€a€key€prosecution€witness.€€The€county€jail€successfullyĻquashed€the€subpoena€on€the€grounds€the€information€was€private€under€Penal€Code€sectionĻ13300.€€However,€the€statute€permits€disclosure€of€the€information€to€a€criminal€defendant€upon€aĻshowing€of€good€cause.€€The€court€of€appeal€ordered€the€matter€remanded€for€reconsideration€ofĻthe€motion€and€a€possible€new€trial.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Antonio€Fonseca€(H025215)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Ō_ŌTuttiŌ_Ō€HackingĢDate:€€November€6,€2003ĢĢą  ąAn€officer€saw€appellant€drive€out€of€a€gas€station€parking€lot€onto€oncoming€trafficĻwithout€yielding.€€Appellant€was€stopped.€€He€acted€nervous,€and€the€officer€suspected€he€mightĻbe€under€the€influence.€€He€had€appellant€do€some€field€sobriety€tests,€which€he€passed;€there€wasĻno€odor€of€alcohol.€€The€officer€then€asked€if€there€were€any€weapons€in€the€car,€and€appellantĻsaid€no.€€The€officer€asked€if€he€could€search€the€car,€and€appellant€said€go€ahead.€€The€officerĻfound€methamphetamine.€€Appellant€admitted€it€was€drugs.€€The€court€of€appeal€reversed.€€It€saidĻthere€was€sufficient€evidence€to€stop€appellant€and€detain€him€for€suspicion€of€driving€under€theĻinfluence.€€After€it€was€determined€that€he€was€not€under€the€influence,€there€was€no€longer€causeĻto€detain€him.€€Appellantššs€consent€to€search€the€car€was€the€result€of€an€illegal€detention.€€(StaffĻattorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Ō_ŌNoeŌ_Ō€Rodriguez€(H023863)ĢPanel€attorney:€Michael€Ō_ŌSatrisŌ_ŌĢDate:€€November€14,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€convictions€were€reversed€because€the€revival€of€the€statute€of€limitations€violatedĻthe€ex€post€fact€clause.€€(ņņŌ_ŌStognerŌ_Ō€v.€Californiaóó€(2003)€123€S.Ct.€2446.Š  +p&) ЀР,`'* Їņ ņššŌ% ‡ ŌERRORŌ%†Ē=Ō€AT€TRIAL€OR€HEARINGó óŠ ° ŠPeople€v.€Sidney€Harris€(H023414)ĢPanel€attorney:€Jan€Ō_ŌStiglitzŌ_ŌĢDate:€January€10,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€armed€robbery€and€false€imprisonment€stemming€from€theĻrobbery€of€a€restaurant.€€Among€other€things,€appellant€argued€the€court€erred€in€not€providing€anĻinstruction€on€a€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€false€imprisonment.€€Appellant€fired€a€gunĻat€the€ceiling€and€commanded€an€employee€to€come€toward€him.€€When€appellant€turned€around,Ļthe€employee€ran€and€hid€behind€a€Ō_ŌDumpsterŌ_Ō.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€decided€the€trial€court€erredĻin€not€giving€the€instruction€on€the€lesser€included€offense€because€there€was€insufficientĻevidence€of€false€imprisonment€since€the€employee€went€where€he€wanted€to€go,€not€whereĻappellant€wanted€him€to€go.€€(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_Ō)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Roman€Vara€(H022686)ĢPanel€attorney:€Gerald€ClausenĢDate:€€February€26,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€conviction€because€he€was€not€allowed€to€question€theĻprosecution€witness€about€being€in€custody€and€whether€he€was€hopeful€of€more€lenientĻtreatment€in€exchange€for€testifying€favorably€to€the€prosecution.€€(Staff€attorney€Vicki€Firstman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€James€Murphy€(H021790)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Walter€Ō_ŌPyleŌ_ŌĢDate:€€April€15,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€forcible€oral€copulation€and€false€imprisonment.€€TheĻcomplaining€witness€was€having€difficulty€testifying€at€trial,€so€the€prosecution€requested€placingĻa€glass€screen€between€the€witness€and€the€defendant.€€The€screen€permitted€appellant€to€see€theĻwitness,€but€the€witness€could€not€see€appellant.€€Over€appellantššs€objection,€the€court€approvedĻthe€procedure.€€In€a€published€opinion,€the€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€Included€in€the€right€toĻconfrontation€is€that€the€witness€and€the€defendant€see€each€other€during€testimony.€€The€right€toĻconfrontation€can€be€curbed€when€necessary€if€the€witness€would€be€traumatized€from€seeing€theĻdefendant.€€Here,€however,€the€trial€court€failed€to€hold€an€evidentiary€hearing,€and€there€was€noĻshowing€that€seeing€the€defendant€was€the€cause€of€the€complaining€witnessššs€difficulties.€€(StaffĻattorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€David€Varela€(H022985)ĢStaff€attorney:€Jonathan€GrossmanĢDate:€€April€25,€2003Š ,`'* Їą  ąAppellant€had€a€jury€trial€in€which€he€was€charged€with€committing€a€series€of€robberies.€ĻDuring€deliberations,€one€of€the€jurors€became€the€lone€holdout.€€The€other€jurors€reported€to€theĻcourt€that€she€had€improperly€interjected€race€into€the€discussion,€was€relying€on€her€ownĻexperiences,€and€dominated€deliberations.€€The€court€urged€the€jury€to€continue€deliberating.€ĻLater,€the€court€stopped€deliberations€on€its€own€when€it€overheard€the€jurors€arguing€loudly.€€ItĻquestioned€the€jurors€and€permitted€the€attorneys€to€question€the€jurors€as€well.€€Over€defenseĻobjection,€the€court€removed€the€holdout€juror.€€Once€the€alternate€was€in€place,€the€jury€returned€Ļverdicts€of€guilty€on€most€of€the€counts.€€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€There€was€notaĻshowing€of€demonstrable€reality€that€the€holdout€juror€failed€to€deliberate.€€Since€some€of€theĻidentifications€were€cross„racial€in€nature,€consideration€of€race€was€proper.€€It€was€not€improperĻfor€jurors€to€rely€on€life€experiences.€€The€court€did€not€have€authority€to€stop€deliberations€on€itsĻown€based€on€the€information€it€possessed,€and€it€did€not€have€the€authority€to€permit€theĻattorneys€to€question€the€jurors.ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Son€Nguyen€(H023433)ĢPanel€attorney:€Gary€Ō_ŌDubcoffŌ_ŌĢDate:€€May€13,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€tried€for€making€criminal€threats,€among€other€things.€€Allegedly,€he€calledĻa€witness€and€threatened€him€over€the€phone.€€When€the€prosecution€witness€testified,€theĻdefense€was€not€allowed€to€question€him€that€he€was€on€probation.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€heldĻthat€whether€the€witness€was€on€probation€concerned€his€motive€to€lie€and€exclusion€of€theĻevidence€was€error.€€Since€the€criminal€threat€charge€depended€on€the€credibility€of€the€witness,Ļthe€error€required€reversal€of€that€count.€€The€court,€however,€found€error€harmless€as€to€the€otherĻconvictions€because€there€were€other€evidence€of€guilt.€€(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_Ō)ĢĢĢIn€re€Francine€C.€(H025265)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Michael€KresserĢDate:€€May€23,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€found€to€have€committed€robbery€and€false€imprisonment.€€She€demandedĻthat€the€victim€remove€a€red€shirt€and€red€shoe€laces€because€they€were€in€Sureno€territory.€ĻBecause€there€was€insufficient€evidence€the€victim€was€detained€for€any€length€of€time,€there€wasĻinsufficient€evidence€of€a€false€imprisonment.€€ĢĢĢPeople€v.€John€Hernandez€(H024139)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Lynda€RomeroĢDate:€€May€23,€2003ĢĢą  ąIn€the€middle€of€trial,€appellant€moved€to€hold€a€ņņMirandaóó€hearing.€€The€trial€court€deniedŠ ,`'* Šthe€request,€stating€the€motion€must€be€made€before€trial.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€remanded€for€aĻnew€ņņMirandaóó€hearing.€€In€this€case,€trial€counsel€explained€why€the€motion€could€not€be€madeŠ  š Šearlier.€€Evidence€Code€section€402€permits€the€motion€be€made€in€limine€or€during€trial.€€(StaffĻattorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢŌ_ŌPeople€v.€Roman€Lopez€(H024492)ĢPanel€attorney:€Beth€CohenĢDate:€€June€27,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€assault€with€force€likely€to€cause€great€bodily€injury€in€countĻone€and€assault€by€a€prisoner€in€count€two.€€Because€count€two€was€a€lesser€included€offense€asĻcharged,€it€must€be€dismissed.€€(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Sacher)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Clifford€JacksonĢPanel€attorney:€Karen€W.€RileyĢDate:€June€27,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€failing€to€register€a€second€address.€€His€defense€was€that€heĻwas€never€told€to€register€a€second€residence.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€in€a€publishedĻdecision€because€the€jury€was€never€properly€instructed€on€knowledge€being€a€prerequisite€forĻwillful€failure€to€register.€€(Staff€attorney€Michael€Kresser)ĢĢPeople€v.€Sergio€Sanchez€€(H023531)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Susan€StackhouseĢDate:€€August€21,€2003ĢĢą  ąAfter€a€preliminary€examination,€appellant€was€held€to€answer.€€He€then€waived€his€rightĻto€a€jury€trial€and€submitted€on€the€transcripts€of€the€preliminary€examination.€€The€trial€courtĻunderstood€this€procedure€to€be€a€š šslow€plea€š š€or€š šņņBunnellóó€plea.šš€€It€advised€appellant€of€certainŠ Š  Šconstitutional€rights€which€he€then€waived.€€He€was€never€advised,€however,€that€his€submissionĻon€the€transcripts€was€tantamount€to€pleading€guilty.€€The€court€of€appeal€reversed,€finding€thereĻwas€insufficient€evidence€in€the€record€appellant€understood€the€consequences€of€the€slow€plea.€Ļ(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Sacher)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Mario€Oliveira€(H024673)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Lora€MartinĢDate:€€August€22,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€being€under€the€influence€while€possessing€a€loaded€firearmĻ(Health€&€Saf.€Code,€šš€11550,€subd.€(e),€among€other€things.€€Because€the€only€evidenceŠ ,`'* Šindicated€the€firearm€was€not€loaded,€there€was€insufficient€evidence.€€The€court€of€appealĻreduced€the€conviction€to€simply€being€under€the€influence.€€(Staff€attorney€Vicki€Firstman)ĢĢĢIn€re€Alex€N.€(H025309)ĢPanel€attorney:€Laura€PediciniĢDate:€€August€29,€2003ĢĢą  ąAt€a€contested€jurisdictional€hearing,€the€court€found€appellant€committed€residentialĻburglary.€€He€was€later€committed€to€the€California€Youth€Authority.€€At€the€jurisdictionalĻhearing,€the€court€relied€on€the€fact€appellant€had€escaped€from€placement€when€the€incidentĻoccurred,€though€no€such€evidence€was€admitted€at€the€jurisdictional€hearing.€€The€court€ofĻappeal€reversed.€€(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Sacher)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Caezariane€Donelson€(H023886)ĢPanel€attorney:€Arthur€WongĢDate:€€September€5,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€charged€with€murder.€€As€part€of€a€plea€bargain,€appellant€pled€guilty€toĻvoluntary€manslaughter€in€exchange€for€a€sentence€of€12€years€8€months€stayed.€€During€theĻentry€of€the€plea€and€the€sentencing,€Judge€Ahern€made€it€clear€that€he€was€going€to€retainĻjurisdiction€to€review€any€alleged€violations€of€probation.€€Subsequently,€appellant€allegedlyĻviolated€probation€by€using€marijuana.€€Although€Judge€Ahern€found€the€allegation€to€be€true,€heĻreinstated€probation.€€Later,€appellant€was€accused€of€transporting€and€possessing€for€sale€crackĻcocaine.€€A€different€judge€revoked€probation€and€executed€the€sentence.€€Appellant€claimed€thatĻunder€the€terms€of€the€plea€bargain,€only€Judge€Ahern€could€consider€the€violation€of€probation.€ĻThe€court€of€appeal€agreed€that€Judge€Ahernššs€statement€could€be€construed€as€a€condition€of€theĻplea€bargain.€€Further,€since€appellant€was€never€advised€pursuant€to€Penal€Code€section€1192.5,Ļthe€issue€was€not€waived€without€an€objection.€€The€court€reversed€with€directions€that€JudgeĻAhern€consider€the€alleged€violation€of€probation.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Ricky€Deal€Ō_Ō(H023960)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Alison€Ō_ŌMcElraveyŌ_ŌĢDate:€€September€9,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€accused€of€petty€theft€with€a€prior€conviction.€€According€to€the€store,Ļappellant€tried€to€š šexchangešš€a€new€product€for€an€item€he€never€purchased.€€Appellant€claims€heĻwas€returning€a€ceiling€fan€that€did€not€fit€the€space€to€which€it€would€be€installed.€€During€theĻtrial,€the€prosecutor€asked€the€loss€prevention€officer,€over€objection,€what€percentage€of€itsĻshoplifters€were€African€American.€€The€prosecutor€then€argued€race€in€closing,€again€overĻobjection.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€Since€identity€was€not€an€issue,€race€was€irrelevantŠ ,`'* Šand€prejudicial.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Virgil€Lee€(H024169)ĢPanel€attorney:€Irma€CastilloĢDate:€September€11,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€auto€theft€and€resisting€arrest.€€His€sentence€was€enhancedĻdue€to€a€prior€strike€conviction€and€for€committing€a€felony€while€released€on€OR.€€Identity€wasĻthe€issue€at€trial.€€The€case€concerned€a€pickup€truck€which€was€stolen€from€East€Palo€Alto.€ĻPolice€chased€the€culprit€across€the€Ō_ŌDumbartonŌ_Ō€Bridge€into€Newark.€€There,€the€driver€ran€fromĻthe€truck€and€away€from€pursuing€officers.€€An€hour€later,€appellant€was€found€in€the€area;€heĻmatched€a€description€of€the€driver,€and€he€was€arrested.€€No€fingerprints€in€the€truck€matchedĻappellantššs.€€The€Newark€Police€Department,€however,€provided€description€of€the€driver€whenĻhe€fled€on€foot€which€did€not€match€appellantššs€appearance.€€This€description€was€neverĻdisclosed€before€or€during€trial.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed,€finding€the€prosecution€failed€toĻdisclose€material€exculpatory€evidence.€€(Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_Ō)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Carlos€Ō_ŌUgarteŌ_Ō€(H022521)ĢPanel€attorney:€Susan€Ō_ŌStackhouseŌ_ŌĢDate:€€October€23,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€lived€with€his€parents€but€also€spent€several€nights€a€week€at€a€friendššs€house.€ĻHe€was€convicted€of€failing€to€register€his€friendššs€house.€€Appellant€claimed€he€did€not€know€heĻwas€required€to.€€The€court€instructed€the€jury€that€ignorance€of€the€law€was€no€excuse.€€TheĻcourt€of€appeal€reversed,€holding€that€the€instruction€precluded€a€legitimate€defense€of€knowinglyĻfailing€to€register.€(Staff€attorney€William€Robinson)ĢĢĢIn€re€Thomas€F.€€(H024767)ĢPanel€attorney:€€J.€Ō_ŌHamlynŌ_ŌĢDate:€€November€4,€2003ĢĢą  ąA€preteen€girl€first€alleged€her€mother€molested€her€several€days€a€week€for€about€16Ļmonths.€€She€later€accused€appellant€of€also€molesting€her€several€times€a€week€over€the€sameĻperiod.€€All€of€the€molestations€occurred€in€a€similar€fashion€and€occurred€when€she€was€aloneĻwith€the€perpetrator.€€She€also€accused€a€third€person€of€molesting€her.€€Appellant€was€chargedĻwith€violating€Penal€Code€section€288.5.€€At€the€contested€jurisdictional€hearing,€appellantĻsought€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€four€witnesses,€three€of€whom€would€refute€the€claim€thatĻthe€victim€was€alone€with€appellant€where€the€molestations€allegedly€occurred.€€The€courtĻexcluded€the€testimony€because€defense€counsel€failed€to€disclose€the€information€pursuant€toĻPenal€Code€section€1054.3.€€The€court€of€appeal€reversed,€following€several€cases€which€holdŠ ,`'* Šthat€reciprocal€discovery€requirements€do€not€apply€in€juvenile€cases€(which€was€news€to€defenseĻcounsel).€€Since€there€was€no€order€from€the€juvenile€court€for€disclosure,€defense€counsel€wasĻunder€no€obligation€to€disclose€the€information.€€The€denial€of€the€right€to€present€a€defense€wasĻprejudicial€error.€€(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_Ō)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Lang€Le€(H024792)ĢPanel€attorney:€Marta€StantonĢDate:€€November€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€court€of€appeal€reversed€the€finding€of€great€bodily€injury€when€the€court€instructedĻthe€jury€on€the€š šgroup€beatingšš€theory.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢ€ĢPeople€v.€Clarence€Ō_ŌHamelŌ_Ō€(H025177)ĢPanel€attorney:€Thomas€Ō_ŌSchaafŌ_ŌĢDate:€November€25,€2003ĢĢą  ąA€jury€convicted€appellant€of€petty€theft€with€a€prior€conviction€and€forgery.€€Before€theĻtrial€began,€he€moved€to€bifurcate€adjudication€of€his€alleged€prior€strike€conviction.€€The€courtĻdenied€the€motion,€and€appellant€admitted€the€prior€rather€than€have€it€introduced€at€trial.€€TheĻcourt€of€appeal€held€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€bifurcating€the€prior,€so€the€admission€wasĻinvalid.€€The€matter€was€remanded€for€a€new€trial€on€the€prior€conviction.€€(Staff€attorney€PaulĻCouenhoven)ĢńžńĢĢPeople€v.€Martin€Jensen€(H024077)ĢPanel€attorney:€€J.€Courtney€Ō_ŌShevelsonŌ_ŌĢDate:€€December€11,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€by€jury€of€distributing€pornography€to€a€minor€through€theĻInternet€with€the€intent€or€purpose€of€seducing€the€minor€in€violation€of€Penal€Code€sectionĻ288.2,€subdivision€(b).€€The€court€rejected€a€proposed€defense€instruction€defining€š šseducingšš€toĻmean€attempting€to€persuade€the€other€into€a€sexual€intercourse.€€Instead,€the€court€definedĻš šseducingšš€as€attempting€to€participate€in€sexual€conduct€which€could€include€masturbation€andĻexhibitionism.€€In€a€published€decision,€the€court€of€appeal€reversed,€stating€the€defenseĻdefinition€of€the€term€was€correct€and€the€erroneous€definition€of€the€term€in€this€case€was€notĻharmless.€€Further,€the€court€of€appeal€noted€that€Penal€Code€section€313€is€a€lesser€includedĻoffense€of€section€288.2.€€(Staff€attorney€William€Robinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Sean€Ō_ŌPetznickŌ_Ō€(H023768)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Stephen€GreenbergŠ ,`'* ŠDate:€€December€18,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€and€three€confederates€broke€into€the€victimššs€home,€killed€him,€and€took€someĻproperty.€€He€was€convicted€by€jury€of€conspiracy€to€commit€murder,€burglary€and€robbery,Ļmurder€with€special€circumstances,€burglary,€and€residential€robbery€in€concert.€€The€courtĻinstructed€the€jury€that€conspiracy€requires€two€or€more€people€to€enter€into€an€agreement€andĻtwo€or€more€people€have€the€specific€intent€to€commit€the€target€offense.€€During€deliberations,Ļthe€jury€asked€if€all€four€participant€needed€to€have€specific€intent€to€commit€the€target€offense.€ĻThe€court€responded€it€does€not.€€In€a€published€decision,€the€court€of€appeal€agreed€withĻappellant€that€the€instruction€and€the€courtššs€response€to€the€juryššs€question€made€it€possible€forĻappellant€to€be€convicted€of€conspiracy€even€if€he€did€not€form€the€specific€intent€to€commit€aĻcrime,€so€long€as€two€of€the€conspirators€had€the€requisite€intent.€€The€court€of€appeal€alsoĻreversed€the€murder„torture€special€circumstance€because€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€thatĻthe€allegation€can€be€found€true€only€if€ņņa€defendantóó€formed€the€specific€intent€to€torture,€insteadŠ ą0  Šof€stating€ņņthe€defendantóó€must€form€the€requisite€intent.€€Finally,€the€imposition€of€a€paroleŠ Š  Šrevocation€fine€was€unauthorized€when€the€defendant€receives€a€sentence€of€life€without€parole.€Ļ(Staff€attorney€Paul€Couenhoven)€ĢńžńĢĢņ ņššŌ% ‡ ŌSENTENCINGó óŌ%†ˆ~ŌŠ €Š ŠPeople€v.€Augustine€Holquin€(H024020)ĢPanel€attorney:€William€ParksĢDate:€€January€9,€2002ĢĢą  ąAccording€to€the€reporterššs€transcript,€when€the€court€sentenced€appellant,€it€failed€toĻimpose€a€restitution€fine€or€parole€revocation€restitution€fine.€€According€to€the€minute€order€ofĻthe€sentencing€hearing€and€the€abstract€of€judgment,€the€court€imposed€a€$1600€restitution€fineĻand€an€equal€parole€revocation€restitution€fine.€€Appellant€claimed€the€fines€were€added€after€theĻsentencing€hearing,€depriving€appellant€of€the€due€process€right€to€be€present€when€the€courtĻrenders€the€sentence.€€Although€the€Attorney€Generalššs€Office€conceded€the€matter€must€beĻremanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing,€the€Court€of€Appeal€engaged€in€a€long€discussion€thatĻerror€cannot€always€be€presumed€when€there€is€a€conflict€between€the€clerkššs€transcript€and€theĻreporterššs€transcript€unless€appellant€first€attempts€to€settle€the€record.€€Nonetheless,€the€CourtĻremanded€the€matter€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing€concerning€the€fines.€€(Staff€attorney€LoriĻQuick)ĢĢĢIn€re€Serapio€M.€€(H024469)ĢPanel€attorney:€Alan€SternĢDate:€€January€30,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€minor€was€made€a€ward€of€the€court€and€ordered€to€not€be€on€anyoneššs€property€atĻnight.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€held€the€condition€of€probation€was€overbroad€and€struck€theŠ ,`'* Šprovision.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Mark€Rodriguez€(H024400)ĢPanel€attorney:€Martin€BuchananĢDate:€January€10,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€pled€no€contest€to€felony€hit€and€run€with€injury.€€Although€he€was€chargedĻwith€suffering€two€prior€strike€convictions,€he€never€admitted€them.€€Nonetheless,€the€courtĻsentenced€him€to€serve€25€years€to€life.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€Appellant€claimed€thereĻwas€an€implied€acquittal,€but€the€Court€held€appellant€could€be€tried€on€the€prior€convictionsĻupon€remand.€€(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Sacher)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Santiago€Reyes€(H024086)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Charles€HolzhauerĢDate:€€January€14,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€court€imposed€$400€in€attorney€fees€without€holding€a€hearing€to€determineĻappellantššs€ability€to€pay€as€required€by€Penal€Code€section€987.8.€€The€Court€of€AppealĻreversed.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Michael€Sanchez€(H023635)ĢPanel€Attorney:€Kathleen€NovoaĢDate:€€February€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąIn€a€published€decision,€the€Court€of€Appeal€held€that€a€court€order€pursuant€to€the€gangĻregistration€statute€was€vague€in€requiring€appellant€to€disclose€to€the€police€the€areas€heĻfrequented.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Basilio€Guzman€(H022726)ĢPanel€Attorney:€€Deborah€WaldĢDate:€February€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€pled€guilty€to€violating€Penal€Code€section€114,€using€a€false€document€toŠ ,`'* Šconceal€his€citizenship.€€The€penalty€for€violating€section€114€is€five€years€in€prison.€€He€showedĻa€fake€California€driverššs€license€to€obtain€his€car€from€the€tow€company.€€Though€he€was€anĻimmigrant,€he€had€been€in€the€United€States€for€years€and€was€married€to€a€citizen€of€the€UnitedĻStates.€€Appellant€expressed€remorse€for€his€actions;€he€otherwise€had€no€criminal€record.€€UnderĻthe€terms€of€the€plea€bargain,€it€was€agreed€he€would€be€placed€on€probation€and€be€sentenced€toĻjail€for€no€more€than€six€months.€€At€sentencing,€the€court€stated€it€hoped€appellant€could€remainĻin€the€country,€it€imposed€five€years€prison€stayed€on€condition€he€complete€probation€includingĻone€month€in€jail.€€Because€the€court€stayed€a€prison€sentence,€instead€of€suspending€impositionĻof€sentence,€the€INS€considered€the€conviction€to€be€an€aggravated€felony.€€Appellant€contendedĻthat€section€114€is€unconstitutional,€five€years€was€cruel€and€unusual€punishment,€the€sentenceĻviolated€the€plea€bargain,€the€court€abused€discretion€in€staying€the€prison€sentence,€and€counselĻwas€ineffective€for€not€objecting€to€the€stayed€sentence.€€The€court€of€appeal€reversed.€€PresidingĻJustice€Conrad€Rushing€and€Justice€Nathan€Mihara€held€the€sentencing€court€lacked€discretion€toĻstay€a€prison€sentence€which€made€him€deportable€when€the€courtššs€intention€was€to€impose€aĻsentence€that€avoided€immigration€consequences.€€In€a€concurring€opinion,€Rushing€also€statedĻfive€years€prison€constituted€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€in€this€case.€€Justice€PatriciaĻBamattre„Manoukian€dissenting,€stating€she€would€have€issued€an€order€to€show€cause€on€theĻhabeas€claim€that€counsel€was€ineffective.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Teddy€Dreher€(H024569)ĢPanel€Attorney:€Jennifer€MannixĢDate:€February€5,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€trial€court€permitted€appellant€to€discharge€retained€counsel€at€the€sentencingĻhearing.€€Appellant€requested€appointed€counsel€and€a€continuance,€so€that€he€could€prepare€aĻmotion€to€withdraw€his€plea.€€The€trial€court€refused€and€sentenced€appellant.€€The€Court€ofĻAppeal€reversed.€€Appellant€was€entitled€to€be€represented€by€counsel€and€he€never€waived€hisĻright€to€counsel.€€If€the€trial€court€permits€him€to€discharge€retained€counsel,€it€must€give€him€anĻopportunity€to€get€a€new€lawyer.€€(Staff€attorney€Michael€Kresser)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€John€Ryan€(H024260)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Irma€CastilloĢDate:€€February€5,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€on€probation€when€he€was€arrested€for€a€new€offense.€€In€a€negotiatedĻsettlement,€he€agreed€to€plead€guilty€to€one€the€new€crime€with€the€understanding€the€violation€ofĻprobation€would€be€found€true€and€other€charges€would€be€dismissed.€€After€pleading€guilty,Ļappellant€asked€to€be€released€for€three€days€to€get€his€affairs€in€order.€€The€court€agreed,€butĻstated€if€he€failed€to€return,€he€would€be€guaranteeing€himself€a€prison€sentence.€He€failed€toĻreturn,€and€the€court€imposed€the€maximum€sentence€permitted.€€It€also€imposed€a€$1000Ļrestitution€fine€for€the€case€he€was€on€probation,€though€he€had€been€assessed€$200€when€he€wasŠ ,`'* Šoriginally€placed€on€probation.€€Appellantššs€motion€to€withdraw€his€plea€was€denied.€€The€CourtĻof€Appeal€held€that€when€the€defendant€enters€a€plea€bargain,€he€must€be€given€the€opportunity€toĻwithdraw€his€plea€if€the€court€decides€the€change€the€terms€of€the€agreement.€€Here,€the€courtĻchanged€the€sentence€to€a€guaranteed€prison€sentence.€€This€required€the€case€to€be€remanded€toĻgive€appellant€the€opportunity€to€withdraw€his€plea.€€Further,€the€sentencing€court€cannotĻincrease€the€restitution€fine€upon€a€revocation€of€probation.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Ricardo€Partida€(H023800)ĢPanel€Attorney:€€Carl€GonserĢDate:€€February€18,€2003ĢĢą  ąIn€a€plea€bargain,€the€appellant€pled€no€contest€to€three€counts€and€admitted€he€suffered€aĻprior€strike€conviction;€eight€charges,€including€the€charge€of€hit€and€run,€were€dismissed.€ĻNonetheless,€the€court€sentenced€appellant€to€a€consecutive€term€of€16€months€for€the€dismissedĻhit€and€run€charge.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€modified€the€sentence€by€deleting€the€16€month€term€soĻthat€the€judgment€complied€with€the€plea€bargain.€€(Staff€attorney€William€Robinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Johnny€Garcia€(H024507)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Paul€CouenhovenĢDate:€€February€20,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€entered€a€plea€bargain€but€was€not€advised€that€if€the€court€disagreed€with€theĻagreement€then€appellant€would€have€an€opportunity€to€withdraw€his€plea.€€When€he€pled,€he€wasĻnot€advised€he€would€owe€a€restitution€fine.€€At€sentencing,€the€court€imposed€an€$800€restitutionĻfine€and€an€$800€parole€revocation€restitution€fine.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reduced€the€fines€to€theĻstatutory€minimum€of€$200.€€(ņņPeople€v.€Walkeróó€(1991)€54€Cal.3d€1013,€1030.)Š P ŠĢĢPeople€v.€Jose€Mendez€(H023973)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Paul€KlevenĢDate:€€February€20,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€entered€a€plea€bargain€but€was€not€advised€that€if€the€court€disagreed€with€theĻagreement€then€appellant€would€have€an€opportunity€to€withdraw€his€plea.€€When€he€pled,€he€wasĻnot€advised€he€would€owe€a€restitution€fine.€€At€sentencing,€the€court€imposed€a€$600€restitutionĻfine€and€a€$600€parole€revocation€restitution€fine.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reduced€the€fines€to€theĻstatutory€minimum€of€$200.€€(ņņPeople€v.€Walkeróó€(1991)€54€Cal.3d€1013,€1030.)€€(Staff€attorneyŠ P( #& ŠJonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€€Rogelio€Avalos€(H023011)Š ,`'* ŠPanel€attorney:€Alfons€WagnerĢDate:€€February€20,€2003ĢĢą  ąAfter€appellantššs€probation€was€revoked,€the€court€imposed€the€upper€term€based,€in€part,Ļon€his€conduct€after€being€placed€on€probation.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed,€since€the€courtĻcannot€rely€on€events€after€granting€probation€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€(Staff€attorneyĻWilliam€Robinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Stephen€StapletonĢPanel€attorney:€€Charles€HolzhauerĢDate:€€February€27,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€embezzling€computer€equipment€from€his€former€employer.€ĻHe€contested€the€restitution€amount.€€At€the€restitution€hearing,€the€attorney€for€the€formerĻemployer€called€and€questioned€witnesses€and€otherwise€litigated€the€issue.€€The€prosecutorĻexcused€himself€and€was€absent€during€a€large€portion€of€the€hearing.€€Appellant€contended€theĻhearing€was€void€because€it€was€conducted€by€the€victim€and€not€a€government€prosecutor.€ĻRespondent€conceded€that€a€portion€of€the€prosecution€of€the€case€cannot€be€delegated€to€aĻprivate€victim.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€restitution€order.€€(Staff€attorney€JonathanĻGrossman)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Jaime€Carrillo€(H024779)ĢStaff€attorney:€William€RobinsonĢDate:€€March€7,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€trial€court€placed€appellant€on€probation€and€imposed€a€$200€restitution€fine.€€WhenĻit€revoked€probation,€it€imposed€a€second€$200€restitution€fine€in€addition€to€an€equal€paroleĻrevocation€restitution€fine.€€The€second€restitution€fine€was€unauthorized.€€Further,€the€trial€courtĻfailed€to€award€six€days€of€presentence€credits.ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Reuben€Washington€(H024579)ĢPanel€Attorney:€€Daniel€ByrneĢDate:€€March€11,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€court€found€appellantššs€prison€prior€to€be€true.€€However,€appellant€had€been€out€ofĻcustody€for€at€least€five€years€since€the€prison€commitment,€so€the€finding€was€reversed.€€(StaffĻattorney€Paul€Couenhoven)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Karrie€Chestnut€(H024005)Š ,`'* ŠPanel€attorney:€Gloria€CohenĢDate:€March€24,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€tried€for€welfare€fraud.€€One€of€the€jurors€revealed€in€voir€dire€that€herĻmother€worked€for€a€welfare€agency€and€discussed€with€her€extensively€about€enforcement€ofĻwelfare€laws.€€Although€the€juror€originally€expressed€a€belief€she€could€be€fair,€she€assertedĻmidway€through€the€trial€that€she€was€having€great€difficulty€setting€aside€her€earlier€experiences.€ĻUpon€questioning€by€the€judge€and€the€attorneys,€she€said€she€would€try€to€be€fair.€€The€trialĻcourt€refused€to€remove€her.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€The€evidence€unequivocally€showedĻshe€was€biased.€€Although€she€stated€she€would€try€to€be€fair,€she€never€stated€she€could€be€fair.€Ļ(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Edgar€Johnson€(H023872)ĢPanel€Attorney:€J.€Frank€McCabeĢDate:€March€28,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€14€counts€of€violating€Penal€Code€section€269€with€one€priorĻstrike€conviction.€€The€court€sentenced€him€to€serve€14€consecutive€terms€of€30€years€to€life,Ļamounting€to€at€least€420€years.€€[If€he€started€his€term€when€the€Massachusetts€Bay€Colony€wasĻfounded,€he€would€still€be€in€custody€today].€€The€court€mistakenly€believed€it€was€required€toĻrun€some€of€the€terms€consecutive.€€In€a€novel€approach€to€avoid€remand,€the€Court€of€AppealĻobserved€that€appellantššs€minimum€sentence€was€now€240€years€to€life.€€Since€it€made€noĻpractical€difference€whether€appellant€was€sentenced€to€serve€at€least€240€years€or€420€years,€theĻCourt€of€Appeal€ordered€that€appellantššs€sentence€be€modified€to€only€240€years€to€life€unless€theĻprosecution€elected€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€(Staff€attorney€William€Robinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Charles€Sullivan€(H023175)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Steven€BedrickĢDate:€€April€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€six€counts€of€violating€Penal€Code€section€269€and€one€countĻof€violating€section€288,€subdivision€(b)(1).€€The€court€imposed€the€terms€for€each€countĻconsecutive€to€each€other€without€stating€a€reason.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€remanded€the€matter€forĻthe€court€to€state€the€reasons€or€to€resentence€him.€€(Staff€attorney€William€Robinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Vincent€Ajagu€(H023143)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Jeffrey€GlickĢDate:€€April€30,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€purchased€airline€tickets€under€a€false€name,€and€after€the€flights€wereŠ ,`'* Šcompleted,€he€filed€false€claims€for€damages.€€He€pled€no€contest€to€grand€theft,€falseĻimpersonation,€forgery,€and€conspiracy.€€He€pled€open;€there€was€no€plea€agreement.€€He€wasĻplaced€on€probation,€but€after€he€violated€probation,€the€court€sentenced€him€to€serve€three€yearsĻin€prison€for€grand€theft€and€false€impersonation,€concurrent€to€each€other.€€The€other€countsĻwere€stayed€pursuant€to€Penal€Code€section€654.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€that€the€falseĻimpersonation€conviction€also€should€have€been€stayed€and€the€trial€court€miscalculatedĻpresentence€credits.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢIn€re€Joseph€C.€(H024509)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Gerald€ClausenĢDate:€€May€2,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€found€to€be€a€ward€of€the€court€for€felony€assault€which€he€gangĻmotivated.€€Among€the€conditions€of€his€probation,€he€was€ordered€not€to€knowingly€be€in€the€areĻknown€to€him€to€be€an€area€of€gang€related€activity€and€not€to€be€in€possession€of€a€paging€deviceĻor€other€portable€communication€equipment.€€Appellant€argued€the€stay€away€order€wasĻunconstitutionally€vague€because€it€did€not€provide€sufficient€notice€what€š šgang€relatedšš€activityĻwould€mean.€€Further,€in€todayššs€society,€cell€phones€and€pagers€have€become€so€ubiquitous€thatĻa€minor€may€legitimately€possess€one€and€the€condition€impermissibly€infringed€on€his€FirstĻAmendment€rights.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€to€a€certain€extent€and€remanded€the€matter€forĻthe€court€to€make€the€probation€conditions€more€clear€and€more€narrow.€€(Staff€attorney€DallasĻSacher)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Mario€Ornelas€(H024694)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Paul€CouenhovenĢDate:€€May€16,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€entered€a€plea€bargain.€€He€was€advised€of€the€possibility€of€receiving€aĻrestitution€fine,€but€he€was€never€told€it€could€be€from€$200€to€$10,000.€€At€sentencing,€the€courtĻimposed€a€restitution€fine€of€$2400€and€an€equal€parole€revocation€restitution€fine.€€The€Court€ofĻAppeal€reversed.€€Pursuant€to€ņņPeople€v.€Walkeróó€(1991)€54€Cal.3d€1013,€under€certainŠ °"  Šcircumstances,€where€a€defendant€enters€a€plea€bargain€and€is€not€adequately€advised€of€aĻrestitution€fine€which€is€later€imposed,€the€fine€must€be€reduced€to€the€statutory€minimum€ofĻ$200.ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Hoa€Hoang€(H024402)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Paul€Demeester€ĢDate:€€May€16,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€petty€theft€with€a€prior€theft€conviction.€€At€sentencing,€it€wasŠ ,`'* Šundisputed€appellant€suffered€from€a€š šhorrible€substance€abuse€problem.šš€€Yet€the€court€refusedĻto€consider€a€commitment€to€the€California€Rehabilitation€Center.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.Ļ(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Sacher)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Dean€Foster€(H024229)ĢPanel€attorney:€Alfons€WagnerĢDate:€€May€22,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€that€appellant€could€not€be€convicted€of€both€grand€theft€andĻembezzlement€for€a€single€act.€€Further,€appellant€could€not€be€convicted€of€petty€theft€with€aĻprior€because€it€was€a€lesser€included€offense€to€grand€theft.€€(Staff€attorney€Paul€Couenhoven)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€John€Hernandez€(H024139)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Lynda€RomeroĢDate:€€May€23,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€sentencing€court€stated€it€agreed€with€appellantššs€argument€and€the€probation€reportĻthat€appellantššs€possession€of€a€firearm€by€a€felon€(count€six)€and€possession€of€ammunitionĻ(count€seven)€were€part€of€one€course€of€conduct.€€The€court,€however,€refused€to€stay€one€of€theĻcounts€pursuant€to€Penal€Code€section€654.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€held€that€the€finding€of€the€trialĻcourt€required€staying€one€of€the€counts.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Christopher€Rubiales€€(H023471)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Jonathan€GrossmanĢDate:€€June€2,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€sentenced€to€serve€61€years€to€life€under€the€Three€Strikes€Law€after€beingĻconvicted€of€robbery€and€residential€burglary.€€The€robbery€was€an€attempted€theft€of€five€cheapĻwatches€from€Rite„Aid€in€which€he€shoved€a€sales€clerk.€€The€burglary€consisted€of€taking€someĻodd€items€from€the€office€of€a€board€and€care€home€where€he€used€to€live.€€He€suffered€a€longĻhistory€of€severe€mental€and€physical€illness€which€contributed€to€his€persistent€drug€use€andĻcriminal€behavior.€€In€a€large€number€of€mental€health€reports€over€the€last€ten€years,€it€wasĻconcluded€he€suffered€from€schizophrenia„type€mental€illness,€depression,€drug€abuse,€andĻseizures.€€At€one€point€he€was€found€incompetent.€€He€was€functional€when€medicated€and€theĻstaff€at€Atascadero€also€diagnosed€him€with€malingering.€€Other€psychiatrists€found€heĻsometimes€feigned€symptoms€of€mental€illness.€€The€sentencing€court€denied€appellantššs€RomeroĻmotion€on€the€grounds€that€it€was€not€convinced€he€suffered€from€mental€illness€or€that€itĻcontributed€to€his€criminal€behavior.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed,€holding€that€the€sentencingĻcourtššs€findings€were€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€ĢŠ ,`'* ЇIn€re€Angel€B.€(H025040)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Lori€QuickĢDate:€June€10,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€made€a€ward€of€the€court.€€After€a€violation€of€probation,€he€wasĻcommitted€to€the€š šranch.šš€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€dispositional€order€becasue€theĻjuvenile€court€miscalculated€appellantššs€custody€crdits.ĢĢĢIn€re€Reyna€G.€€(H024563)ĢPanel€attorney:€Gloria€CohenĢDate:€June€27,.€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€placed€on€probation€and€told€not€to€š šengage€in€gang€activityšš,€wear€š šgangĻclothingšš€or€obtain€š šnew€gang€tattoos.šš€€She€contended€on€appeal€the€condition€wasĻunconstitutionally€overbroad€and€vague.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€modified€the€gang€condition€toĻspecify€that€the€word€gang€shall€mean€a€criminal€street€gang€as€defined€by€Penal€Code€sectionĻ186.22,€subdivisions€(e)€and€(f).€€(Staff€attorney€Michael€Kresser)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Darryl€Pugh€€(H022984)ĢPanel€Attorney:€€Solomon€WollackĢDate:€€July€23,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€in€count€one€of€possession€of€crack€cocaine€for€sale€and€in€countĻtwo€of€possession€of€cocaine.€€Under€the€Three€Strikes€Law,€the€court€imposed€two€concurrentĻsentences€of€25€years€to€life.€€Because€count€two€was€a€lesser€included€offense,€it€needed€to€beĻdismissed.€€(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Sacher)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Ted€Iniguez€€(H023405)ĢPanel€Attorney:€€Robert€HowellĢDate:€€July€24,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€threatening€a€witnesses€(Pen.€Code,€šš€136.1,€subd.€(c)(1))€andĻauto€theft€with€a€prior€(Pen.€Code,€šš€666.5),€among€other€counts.€€The€court€imposed€aĻconsecutive€sentence€under€the€belief€it€was€required€by€Penal€Code€section€1170.15.€€The€statuteĻdoes€not€require€consecutive€sentences,€only€that€if€a€consecutive€is€imposed€for€dissuading€aĻwitness,€it€must€be€a€full€middle€term.€€The€court€of€appeal€reversed€for€a€new€sentencingĻhearing.€€It€also€found€that€a€sentence€could€not€be€imposed€on€auto€theft€with€a€prior€when€thereĻwas€no€finding€that€the€prior€auto€theft€was€true.€€Although€the€failure€to€render€a€verdict€isĻnormally€an€implied€acquittal,€the€court€of€appeal€held€that€there€was€no€double€jeopardy€bar€toĻretrying€the€allegation€that€appellant€suffered€the€prior€conviction.€€(Staff€attorney€WilliamsŠ ,`'* ŠRobinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Sergio€DeLeon,€et€al.€€(H024645)ĢPanel€attorneys:€€Jill€M.€Bojarski€and€Rudolph€KraftĢDate:€€July€30,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€two€appellants€were€convicted€of€attempted€carjacking,€robbery,€and€misdemeanorĻassault€among€other€things.€€The€court€ran€the€sentence€for€assault€(which€occurred€during€theĻattempting€carjacking)€concurrent€with€the€sentence€for€attempted€carjacking.€€The€court€ofĻappeal€agreed€that€the€sentence€should€have€been€stayed.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Gregory€Guzman€€(H024003)ĢAttorney:€Seth€FlagsbergĢDate:€€August€8,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€on€probation€for€domestic€violence€when€he€committed€a€drug€offense.€€HeĻwas€sentenced€to€prison€€€The€Court€of€Appeal€concluded€Proposition€36€did€not€apply€to€him.€ĻProposition€36€would€have€applied€if€the€defendant€were€sent€to€prison€on€the€domestic€violenceĻconviction€and€committed€the€drug€offense€while€on€parole.€€In€a€published€decision,€the€Court€ofĻAppeal€concluded€it€violated€equal€protection€not€to€apply€probationers€when€it€applied€toĻparolees.€€(Santa€Clara€Public€Defenderššs€Office)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Stephen€Myint€€(H023781)ĢPanel€attorney:€Kathleen€NovoaĢDate:€€August€19,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€pled€no€contest€to€assault€with€a€stun€gun€and€attempted€kidnapping.€€TheĻCourt€of€Appeal€agreed€that€appellant€was€not€given€sufficient€notice€of€the€amount€of€victimĻrestitution€ordered€and€the€court€erred€in€not€staying€one€of€the€counts€pursuant€to€Penal€CodeĻsection€654.€€Although€appellant€pled€no€contest,€there€was€no€bargain€for€a€specific€sentence,€soĻņņPeople€v.€Hesteróó€(2000)€22€Cal.4th€290€did€not€bar€review.€€(Staff€attorney€William€Robinson)Š  #š! ŠĢĢPeople€v.€Jonathon€Bernal€(H024843)ĢPanel€attorney:€Julie€SchumerĢDate:€€September€10,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€entered€a€plea€bargain€concerning€two€cases.€€He€was€not€advised€of€aĻrestitution€fine€nor€was€he€advised€that€he€could€withdraw€his€plea€if€his€sentence€differed€fromĻthe€bargain.€€(Pen.€Code,€šš€1192.5.)€€The€court€imposed€a€restitution€fines€totaling€$11,200€andŠ ,`'* Šstayed€a€parole€revocation€restitution€fine€of€an€equal€amount.€€Because€the€fines€departed€fromĻthe€plea€bargain,€the€restitution€fine€must€be€reduced€to€$200.€€(Staff€attorney€Dallas€Sacher)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Daniel€Medina€(H024965)ĢPanel€attorney:€Geri€GreenĢDate:€€September€12,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€of€Appeal€remanded€because€the€trial€court€miscalculate€presentence€credits.€Ļ(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Sean€Henderson€(H024071)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Paul€KlevenĢDate:€September€16,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€placed€on€probation.€€Although€the€court€did€not€require€it€when€it€listedĻthe€conditions€of€probation,€the€probation€officer€directed€appellant€to€be€gainfully€employed€orĻin€school.€€Subsequently,€the€probation€office€accused€appellant€of€violating€probation€for€failingĻto€be€gainfully€employed€or€in€school.€€The€court€found€the€violation€true€and€extended€probationĻone€more€year.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€because€his€probation€cannot€be€revoked€whenĻappellant€complied€with€all€of€the€conditions€ordered€by€the€court.€€(Staff€attorney€WilliamĻRobinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Craig€Chan€(H025144)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Jonathan€GrossmanĢDate:€€September€19,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€pled€guilty€and€sentenced€to€serve€16€years€in€prison.€€At€sentencing,€he€wasĻassessed€attorney€fees€of€$500.€€Because€there€was€no€evidence€he€had€any€income€or€assets€andĻthere€was€a€statutory€presumption€that€a€prisoner€lacked€the€ability€to€pay€attorney€fees,€there€wasĻinsufficient€evidence€to€support€the€courtššs€order.€€ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Richardo€Landecho€(H025016)ĢPanel€attorney:€Alex€GreenĢDate:€€September€19,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€lost€his€wallet€containing€$2322.€€When€a€person€found€the€wallet€and€reportedĻit€to€the€police,€officers€were€suspicious,€as€appellant€was€on€parole.€€Officers€called€appellantĻand€told€him€they€found€his€wallet.€€When€he€drove€to€the€police,€officers€conducted€a€paroleĻsearch.€€In€the€right€front€passenger€seat€was€appellantššs€13€year„old€daughter.€€She€was€clutchingŠ ,`'* Ša€bag€which€contained€cocaine€and€methamphetamine.€€After€being€convicted,€he€receivedĻconsecutive€sentences€for€using€a€minor€to€transport€methamphetamine€and€using€a€minor€toĻtransport€cocaine.€€The€court€of€appeal€held€that€under€the€facts€of€the€case,€Penal€Code€sectionĻ654€prohibited€dual€punishment€for€the€same€act€of€using€his€daughter€to€transport€drugs.€€(StaffĻattorney€William€Robinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Jonathan€Ō_ŌCastalineŌ_Ō€(H023789)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Charles€Ō_ŌBonneauŌ_ŌĢDate:€€September€23,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€various€crimes€and€conduct€credits€were€limited€to€15€percentĻpursuant€to€Penal€Code€section€2933.1.€€The€problem€was€that€appellant€was€not€convicted€of€aĻviolent€felony.€€The€court€of€appeal€reversed€the€limitation€of€presentence€credits.€€(WilliamĻRobinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Carlos€Ō_ŌGarzaŌ_Ō€(H024041)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Alan€Ō_ŌSiracoŌ_ŌĢDate:€October€9,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€found€by€police€in€a€car€that€had€been€stolen€from€his€employer€for€a€week.€ĻA€jury€found€him€guilty€of€auto€theft€and€receiving€or€retaining€stolen€property,€among€otherĻthings.€€Appellant€argued€he€court€not€be€convicted€of€both€theft€and€possessing€the€same€stolenĻproperty.€€Penal€Code€section€496,€as€amended€in€1992,€states€no€person€can€be€convicted€ofĻviolating€that€statute€and€of€theft€of€the€same€property.€€The€court€of€appeal€observed€that€inĻcommon€law,€one€could€be€convicted€of€theft€and€possessing€the€same€property€only€if€there€wasĻa€š šcomplete€divorcementšš€by€withholding€the€property€beyond€what€was€expected€from€merelyĻtaking€it.€€There€is€a€conflict€of€authority€in€deciding€whether€the€common€law€rule€survived€theĻamendment€to€the€statute.€€In€a€published€decision,€the€court€of€appeal€held€the€common€law€ruleĻdid€not€survive€the€amendment,€and€appellant€could€not€be€convicted€of€both€crimes.€€The€courtĻalso€found€the€trial€court€miscalculated€presentence€credits.€€(Staff€attorney€Michael€Kresser)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Carlos€Lugo€et€al.€€(H023308)ĢPanel€attorneys:€€Randy€Baker€(Lugo)Ģą  ąą ` ą€€€€David€Stanley€(Antonio€Ō_ŌLeybaŌ_Ō)ĢDate:€€October€21,€2003ĢĢą  ąŌ_ŌLeybaŌ_Ō€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€with€a€gang€enhancement,€among€otherĻthings.€€He€received€a€life€term€for€murder€plus€ten€years€for€the€gang€enhancement.€€The€Ō_ŌcourtŌ_Ō€ofĻappeal€reversed€the€sentence,€deciding€that€the€penalty€provision€of€no€parole€in€less€than€15Ļyears€applied€to€gang€crimes€with€indeterminate€sentences.€€Further,€when€the€jury€found€theŠ ,`'* Šenhancement€under€subdivisions€(c)€and€(d)€of€Penal€Code€section€12022.53,€the€court€mustĻstrike€the€lesser€enhancement,€not€stay€it,€under€subdivision€(f)€of€the€statute.€€Finally,€aĻrestitution€fine€imposed€on€Lugo€of€$11,400€was€error€because€the€statutory€maximum€isĻ$10,000.€€(Staff€attorney€Paul€Couenhoven)ĢĢĢĢPeople€v.€Saul€Ō_ŌAldanaŌ_Ō€(H024365)ĢPanel€attorney:€Timothy€Ō_ŌCroninŌ_ŌĢDate:€€October€22,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€making€a€criminal€threat€and€attempted€voluntaryĻmanslaughter,€among€other€charges.€€He€received€a€consecutive€sentence.€€Appellant€had€chasedĻthe€victim€with€a€knife,€threatening€to€kill€her.€€The€court€of€appeal€held€that€the€sentence€forĻmaking€a€criminal€threat€should€have€been€stayed€pursuant€to€Penal€Code€section€654.€€(StaffĻattorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Raul€Ō_ŌUvallesŌ_ŌĢStaff€attorney:€Lori€QuickĢDate:€October€28,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€found€guilty€of€murder€and€robbery.€€The€murder€was€committed€duringĻthe€robbery.€€The€court€imposed€a€concurrent€term€for€the€robbery€which€was€error€under€PenalĻCode€section€654.ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Adrian€Ō_ŌMelgozaŌ_Ō€(H012125)ĢPanel€attorney:€€David€Ō_ŌCaricoŌ_ŌĢDate:€€November€14,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€convicted€of€murder€with€a€gang€enhancement,€among€other€things.€€HeĻwas€sentenced€to€serve€life€for€the€murder€and€two€years€for€the€gang€enhancement.€€The€court€ofĻappeal€agreed€that€section€186.22€prohibits€imposing€a€gang€enhancement€to€an€indeterminateĻsentence;€instead,€appellant€cannot€be€paroled€for€15€years.€€(Staff€attorney€Paul€Couenhoven)ĢĢĢIn€re€Adam€H.€€(H025862)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_ŌĢDate:€November€20,€2003ĢĢą  ąWhen€the€minor€was€placed€on€probation,€the€court€ordered€that€he€š šno€own,€use,€orĻpossess€any€dangerous€or€deadly€weapons€and€not€remain€in€any€building,€vehicle,€or€theŠ ,`'* Špresence€of€any€person€where€dangerous€or€deadly€weapons€exist.šš€€The€court€of€appeal€agreed€toĻmodify€the€condition€to€require€the€minor€to€not€remain€where€he€knows€weapons€to€exist.ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Ō_ŌNiiakwiŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌAlloteyŌ_Ō€(H025225)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Victoria€StaffordĢDate:€€November21,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€pled€guilty€to€possession€of€crack€cocaine€for€sale,€possession€ofĻmethamphetamine€for€sale,€and€possession€of€ammunition€by€a€felon.€€He€was€placed€onĻprobation,€but€it€was€alleged€he€violated€probation.€€After€appellant€rejected€a€negotiatedĻsettlement€of€three€years€in€prison,€the€court€held€a€contested€hearing€and€found€him€in€violation.€ĻIn€imposing€a€four€year€prison€term,€the€court€commented€that€appellant€rejected€an€offer€of€threeĻyears,€š šso€I€see€no€reason€not€to€impose€the€midterm€of€four€years.šš€€The€court€of€appealĻremanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing,€ruling€that€it€appeared€from€the€sentencing€courtššsĻcomments€that€appellant€was€being€punished€for€exercising€his€constitutional€right€to€a€contestedĻhearing.€€(Staff€attorney€Paul€Couenhoven)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Daniel€Ō_ŌPantojaŌ_Ō€(H024476)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Jennifer€Ō_ŌMannixŌ_ŌĢDate:€€December€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąIn€holding€appellant€to€answer€for€auto€theft€and€receiving€stolen€property,€the€magistrateĻstated,€and€the€prosecutor€agreed,€that€the€receiving€stolen€property€charge€was€alleged€in€theĻalternative.€€Appellant€later€pled€no€contest€to€both€charges.€€At€sentencing,€the€court€stayed€theĻpunishment€for€receiving€stolen€property€pursuant€to€Penal€Code€section€654.€€He€appealed€andĻfiled€a€habeas€corpus€petition€alleging€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€having€him€plead€to€bothĻcounts€since€one€cannot€be€convicted€of€receiving€and€stealing€the€same€item.€€A€divided€court€ofĻappeal€reversed€on€appeal.€€It€also€ruled€as€a€preliminary€matter€that€because€the€matter€was€aĻpure€issue€of€law€and€an€unauthorized€sentence,€it€was€not€attacking€the€plea€bargain.€€(StaffĻattorney€Lori€Quick)Ģń›ńĢĢń›ńńńńœńĢĢPeople€v.€Daniel€Ō_ŌPantojaŌ_Ō€(H024476)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Jennifer€Ō_ŌMannixŌ_ŌĢDate:€€December€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąIn€holding€appellant€to€answer€for€auto€theft€and€receiving€stolen€property,€the€magistrateĻstated,€and€the€prosecutor€agreed,€that€the€receiving€stolen€property€charge€was€alleged€in€theĻalternative.€€Appellant€later€pled€no€contest€to€both€charges.€€At€sentencing,€the€court€stayed€theŠ ,`'* Špunishment€for€receiving€stolen€property€pursuant€to€Penal€Code€section€654.€€He€appealed€andĻfiled€a€habeas€corpus€petition€alleging€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€having€him€plead€to€bothĻcounts€since€one€cannot€be€convicted€of€receiving€and€stealing€the€same€item.€€A€divided€court€ofĻappeal€reversed€on€appeal.€€It€also€ruled€as€a€preliminary€matter€that€because€the€matter€was€aĻpure€issue€of€law€and€an€unauthorized€sentence,€it€was€not€attacking€the€plea€bargain.€€(StaffĻattorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢńœńńńńœńPeople€v.€Stephen€Ō_ŌMyintŌ_Ō€€(H023781)ĢPanel€attorney:€Kathleen€Ō_ŌNovoaŌ_ŌĢDate:€€December€8,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€pled€no€contest€to€assault€with€a€stun€gun€and€attempted€kidnapping.€€TheĻCourt€of€Appeal€agreed€that€appellant€was€not€given€sufficient€notice€of€the€amount€of€victimĻrestitution€ordered€and€the€court€erred€in€not€staying€one€of€the€counts€pursuant€to€Penal€CodeĻsection€654.€€Although€appellant€pled€no€contest,€there€was€no€bargain€for€a€specific€sentence,€soĻņņPeople€v.€Hesteróó€(2000)€22€Cal.4th€290€did€not€bar€review.€€(Staff€attorney€William€Robinson)Š ,`'* ЇĢIn€re€Robert€B.€(H026018)ĢStaff€attorney:€Lori€QuickĢDate:€December€10,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€found€to€have€violated€Penal€Code€section€626.10,€a€wobbler,€by€bringingĻa€locking€blade€knife€to€school.€€At€the€dispositional€hearing,€he€moved€to€reduce€the€offense€to€aĻmisdemeanor.€€The€court€never€expressly€ruled€on€the€motion€or€declared€the€offense€to€be€aĻfelony€or€misdemeanor,€although€the€minute€order€lists€it€as€a€felony.€€The€matter€was€remandedĻfor€the€juvenile€court€to€make€an€expressed€finding€whether€the€offense€was€a€felony€orĻmisdemeanor.€(See€ņņIn€re€Ō_ŌManzyŌ_Ō€W.óó€(1997)€14€Cal.4th€1199,€1207„1208.)Š `  ŠĢPeople€v.€Jaime€Gomez€(H025367)ĢPanel€attorney:€Barbara€MichelĢDate:€€December€11,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€in€which€he€pled€no€contest€to€manufacturing€andĻpossessing€methamphetamine€in€exchange€for€dismissing€other€charges€and€the€low€term€of€threeĻyears€in€prison.€€He€agreed€to€pay€restitution€for€the€clean€up€of€chemical€waste,€but€he€was€notĻadvised€of€a€criminal€fine€or€restitution€fine.€€At€sentencing,€the€court€imposed€a€$5000€criminalĻfine€and€an€$800€restitution€fine.€€The€court€of€appeal€held€that€the€fines€cannot€be€imposedĻbecause€they€were€not€part€of€the€bargain.€€Since€the€law€requires€a€minimum€restitution€fine€ofĻ$200€and€a€minimum€criminal€fine€of€$100€for€manufacturing€meth,€the€fines€were€reduced€toĻthose€amounts.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢņ ņó óPeople€v.€Salvador€€Ō_ŌManquerosŌ_Ō€(H025100)Š ` ŠStaff€attorney:€€Jonathan€GrossmanĢDate:€€December€17,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€entered€into€a€plea€bargain€where€he€pled€no€contest€to€ten€felony€counts€andĻadmit€he€suffered€two€prior€strike€convictions€with€the€agreement€that€he€would€receive€oneĻsentence€of€25€years€to€life.€€When€he€pled,€the€court€advised€it€could€impose€face€a€restitutionĻfine€of€$10,000;€he€was€not€advised€that€if€the€court€failed€to€comply€with€the€plea€bargain,€heĻcould€withdraw€his€plea.€€At€sentencing,€the€court€imposed€the€agreed€sentence€and€a€$10,000Ļrestitution€fine€without€objection.€€The€court€of€appeal€reduced€the€restitution€fine€to€the€statutoryĻminimum€of€$200€because€the€fine€was€not€part€of€the€plea€bargain.ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Ō_ŌArasŌ_Ō„Ō_ŌMaldonadoŌ_Ō€(H025522)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Karen€KellyĢDate:€€December€17,€2003ĢŠ ,`'* Šą  ąLast€year,€the€court€reversed€the€order€that€appellant€undergo€a€test€for€HIV€because€theĻcourt€failed€to€hold€a€hearing€on€the€matter€upon€defendantššs€request.€€On€remand,€the€superiorĻcourt€again€ordered€an€HIV€test.€€The€court€of€appeal€reversed,€finding€insufficient€evidence€of€aĻtransferring€bodily€fluids.€€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢńœńĢĢņ ņššŌ% ‡ ŌDEPENDENCYŌ%†ėžŌ€CASESó óŠ @ ŠIn€re€Desired€D.€(H024772)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Mario€de€SolenniĢDate:€February€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€appealed€from€the€termination€of€parental€rights€and€contended€CPS€failed€toĻprovide€proper€notice€as€required€by€the€Indian€Child€Welfare€Act.€€CPS€conceded.€€The€Court€ofĻAppeal€reversed.€€(Staff€attorney€Vicki€Firstman)ĢĢĢIn€re€Jessica€H.€€(H024837)ĢPanel€Attorney:€€Erlinda€CastroĢDate:€€March€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€had€her€parental€rights€terminated.€€On€appeal,€she€contended€that€CPS€did€notĻcomply€with€the€notice€requirement€of€the€Indian€Child€Welfare€Act.€The€social€worker€reportedĻthat€the€minor€may€have€Indian€ancestry€but€could€not€find€the€tribe€listed€as€a€federallyĻrecognized€tribe,€so€notice€was€required.€€In€fact,€notice€to€the€Bureau€of€Indian€Affairs€wasĻrequired.€€This€is€because€some€tribes,€such€as€the€Iroquois,€are€not€listed€under€Iroquois€butĻunder€their€band€names.€€DFCS€conceded€error,€and€the€Court€of€Appeal€reversed.€€(StaffŠ ,`'* Šattorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢIn€re€David€G.€€(H024760)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Michael€KlukĢDate:€€March€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€juvenile€court€ordered€at€the€dispositional€hearing€and€the€six€month€review€hearingĻthat€the€mother€shall€have€visitation,€but€the€children€shall€not€be€forced€to€visit.€€Indeed,€someĻchildren€chose€not€to€visit.€€A€habeas€petition€was€filed€in€the€Court€of€Appeal€contendingĻcounsel€was€ineffective€for€not€objecting€to€an€order€permitting€the€children€to€veto€visitation€andĻto€the€juvenile€courtššs€finding€there€were€reasonable€services.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€issued€anĻorder€to€show€cause.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢIn€re€J.I.€€(H014059)ĢPanel€attorney:€Carol€KoenigĢDate:€€May€19,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€court€terminated€appellantššs€parental€rights€of€her€three€children.€€After€theĻpermanent€plan€hearing,€one€of€the€children€were€removed€from€the€prospective€adoptive€familyĻand€no€longer€appeared€adoptable.€€Based€on€the€new€evidence,€the€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€asĻto€the€one€child€in€a€published€opinion.€€It€remanded€the€matter€for€a€new€permanent€planĻhearing.€€(Staff€attorney€Vicki€Firstman)ĢĢĢIn€re€Steven€G.€(H024580)ĢPanel€attorney:€Carolyn€ToddĢDate:€June€10,€2003ĢĢą  ąIn€a€previous€appeal,€the€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€for€failure€to€comply€with€the€IndianĻChild€Welfare€Act.€€CPS€sent€notice€for€the€Indian€tribe€to€the€wrong€address.€€While€this€appealĻwas€pending,€CPS€sent€new€notices€to€the€tribes€and€sought€to€have€the€Court€of€Appeal€takeŠ ,`'* Šjudicial€notice€of€the€new€efforts€to€notify€the€tribes.€€Appellant€pointed€out€that€the€notices€thatĻwere€sent€were€defective€for€failing€to€include€required€information.€€The€Court€of€AppealĻreversed€for€the€juvenile€court€to€determine€if€ICWA€has€been€complied€with.€€(Staff€attorneyĻJonathan€Grossman)ĢĢIn€re€Nicholas€S.€€(H024913)ĢPanel€attorneys:€Catherine€Campbell€(mother)Ģą  ąą ` ą€€€Ann€Jory€(father)ĢDate:€€June€27,€2003€ĢĢą  ąThe€parents€opposed€CPSššs€recommendation€to€terminate€parental€rights.€€On€June€4,Ļ2002,€both€parents€were€present€and€asked€for€a€contested€hearing.€€The€court€scheduled€aĻsettlement€conference€for€June€25€and€the€contested€permanent€plan€hearing€for€July€18.€€It€toldĻthe€parents€to€attend€both€dates€and€advised€them€that€their€parental€rights€could€be€terminated€atĻthe€July€18€hearing.€€On€June€25,€both€parents€failed€to€appear.€€The€court€asked€for€an€offer€ofĻproof.€€When€a€satisfactory€offer€of€proof€could€not€be€made,€the€court€terminated€parental€rightsĻand€vacated€the€July€18€hearing.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€did€not€find€error€in€the€court€requiring€anĻoffer€of€proof.€€But€it€held€the€parents€did€not€receive€adequate€notice€that€their€parental€rightsĻcould€be€terminated€at€the€June€25€hearing,€and€this€required€reversal€of€the€order€freeing€theĻminor€for€adoption.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢIn€re€Amber€B.€€(H024812)ĢPanel€attorney:€Julie€Ten€EyckĢDate:€€June€30,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€court€assumed€jurisdiction,€removed€the€child,€and€offered€reunification€services.€€ItĻscheduled€visitation€but€provided€the€minor€š šshall€not€be€forced€to€visitšš€appellant.€€The€Court€ofĻAppeal€struck€this€order€as€impermissibly€permitting€the€minor€to€veto€visitation.€€(Staff€attorneyĻJonathan€Grossman)ĢĢĢIn€re€N.P.€€(H025024)ĢPanel€attorneys:€Maureen€Keaney€and€Frank€FreeĢDate:€€July€30,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€mother€had€three€children€removed€during€this€dependency,€the€two€younger€onesĻwere€the€children€of€the€father€in€this€appeal.€€Although€the€court€rejected€claims€the€childrenĻwere€not€adoptable,€it€reversed€the€termination€of€parental€rights€as€to€the€oldest€child€based€onĻnew€information€provided€by€minorsšš€counsel€that€the€childššs€placement€failed€and€she€appearedĻto€no€longer€be€adoptable.€€The€court€of€appeal€also€reversed€for€the€juvenile€court€to€give€properĻnotice€pursuant€to€ICWA.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)ĢŠ ,`'* ЇĢĢņ ņššńń6/€ńńńńŌ% ‡ ŌńńHABEASńńŌ%†AżŌńń€ORDERS€TO€SHOW€CAUSE€ó óŠ ą ŠPeople€v.€Ronald€Gezzi€(H023875)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Jill€M.€BojarskiĢDate:€€January€3,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€driving€a€white€Jeep€Cherokee€when€he€was€stopped€by€the€police€forĻmatching€the€description€of€a€person€who€robbed€a€7„Eleven€two€weeks€previously.€€The€robberĻescaped€in€a€white€Jeep€Cherokee.€€Witnesses€identified€appellant€as€the€robber,€but€they€wereĻnot€certain.€€Appellant€presented€an€alibi€defense,€claiming€he€was€with€his€wife€and€sheĻremembered€the€day€because€she€had€a€doctorššs€appointment€the€next€day.€€Appellantššs€attorneyĻasked€her€what€the€appointment€was€for,€but€the€prosecution€objected€that€it€was€irrelevant.€ĻAppellantššs€counsel€said€it€was€relevant€but€made€no€offer€of€proof.€€The€court€sustained€theĻobjection.€€As€it€turned€out,€the€wifeššs€appointment€was€to€receive€the€results€of€tests€whichĻwould€indicate€whether€she€had€cancer€and€needed€a€hysterectomy.€€The€gravity€of€theĻappointment€was€necessary€to€bolster€her€credibility€as€to€why€she€would€remember€this€day.€ĻThis€would€have€helped€rebut€the€natural€presumption€by€the€jurors€that€her€favorable€testimonyĻwas€because€she€was€biased€for€her€husband.€€€Additionally,€counsel€failed€to€present€medicalĻrecords€which€would€have€corroborated€her€recollection€of€events,€failed€to€get€a€hold€of€aĻwitness€who€could€have€corroborated€part€of€the€alibi,€failed€to€present€evidence€of€appellantššsĻincome€which€would€have€demonstrated€a€lack€of€motive€to€commit€the€robbery,€and€failed€toĻpresent€an€expert€witness€who€would€have€established€that€white€Jeep€Cherokees€were€veryĻcommon.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€issued€an€order€to€show€cause€on€the€claim€that€trial€counsel€wasĻineffective.€€(Staff€attorney€Jonathan€Grossman)€ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Bernie€Demetrio€Becerra€(H025220)ĢPanel€attorney:€John€SchuckĢDate:€March€27,€2003ĢĢą  ąAppellant€was€charged€with€13€felonies€and€some€conduct€enhancements.€€It€was€alsoĻalleged€he€had€three€prior€strike€convictions.€€As€charged,€he€could€have€been€sentenced€to€serveĻ150€years€to€life.€€Upon€the€urging€of€trial€counsel,€appellant€pled€no€contest€to€eight€of€theĻcharges;€the€prosecution€dismissed€the€other€five€because€it€believed€there€was€insufficientĻevidence€or€because€Penal€Code€section€654€prohibited€imposing€a€sentence€on€the€remainingĻcharges.€€Appellant€admitted€he€suffered€three€prior€strike€convictions.€€At€the€sentencingĻhearing,€the€prosecution€stated€that€two€of€the€three€priors€did€not€qualify€as€strikes.€€They€wereĻconvictions€for€assault€with€a€deadly€weapon,€but€appellant€did€not€personally€use€a€weapon.€ĻThe€two€strikes€were€dismissed€and€appellant€was€sentenced€to€28€years€4€months.€€Trial€counselĻdid€not€move€to€withdraw€the€plea.€€In€a€declaration€attached€to€appellantššs€habeas€petition,€trialĻcounsel€stated€he€did€not€know€that€they€did€not€qualify€as€strikes,€and€had€he€known€he€wouldĻnot€have€recommended€appellant€enter€the€plea.€€The€court€of€appeal€issued€an€order€to€showŠ ,`'* Šcause.€€(Staff€attorney€Williams€Robinson)ĢĢĢPeople€v.€Sunny€Nguyen€(H019770)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Lori€KleinĢDate:€€May€8,€2003ĢĢą  ąA€jury€found€appellant€guilty€of€three€counts€of€murder€with€special€circumstances.€€OneĻof€the€strongest€pieces€of€evidence€against€appellant€was€his€confession.€€Appellant,€who€speaksĻVietnamese,€insisted€he€asked€for€an€attorney€before€questioning€began.€The€transcript€of€theĻaudiotaped€interrogation€has€several€entries€labeled€š š(inaudible).šš€€Appellate€arranged€for€aĻVietnamese€interpreter€to€hear€the€tape.€€According€to€the€interpreter,€in€one€of€the€passagesĻwhich€was€purportedly€inaudible,€appellant€said€the€word€š šlawyeršš€in€English€and€asked€for€anĻattorney,€though€the€rest€of€the€sentence€was€in€Vietnamese.€€A€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpusĻwas€filed.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€had€issued€an€order€to€show€cause.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearingĻin€the€superior€court,€the€referee€found€that€Mr.€Nguyen€asked€for€a€lawyer.€€The€Court€of€AppealĻadopted€the€finding.€€It€also€held€that€Mr.€Nguyenššs€previous€statement€to€the€police€wasĻinadmissible€because€it€was€a€custodial€interrogation€without€advising€him€of€his€rights€underĻņņMirandaóó.€€The€conviction€was€reversed.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)Š ą ŠĢĢIn€re€Minh€Phan€€(H025407)ĢAttorney:€€Jill€LansingĢDate:€€July€22,€2003ĢĢą  ąDefendant€was€convicted€of€felony€assault€with€a€great€bodily€injury€enhancement.€€TheĻvictim€was€driving€his€van€down€a€congested€thoroughfare€when€he€changed€lanes.€€He€was€nextĻto€a€car€driven€by€the€defendant€who€had€a€passenger.€€They€were€yelling€something€at€the€victimĻwhich€he€did€not€hear.€€A€bottle€was€thrown€at€the€victimššs€van.€€In€response,€the€victim€cut€inĻfront€of€defendantššs€car€and€parked€on€the€median€of€the€road.€€Defendant€stopped€behind€theĻvictim.€€A€fight€started€which€the€victim€lost.€€The€court€of€appeal€issued€an€order€to€show€causeĻbased€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Trial€counsel€failed€to€present€a€witnessĻwhich€would€have€contradicted€statements€made€by€a€prosecution€witness.€€Trial€counsel€a;spĻfailed€to€introduce€medical€records€which€would€have€shown€the€victim€did€not€suffer€greatĻbodily€injury.€€(Staff€attorney€Lori€Quick)ĢĢĢIn€re€Ephrahim€SadeghyĢStaff€attorney:€€Dallas€SacherĢDate:€€August€21,€2003ĢĢą  ąThe€superior€court€ordered€relief€on€a€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus€after€petitionerĻwas€denied€parole.€€Petitioner€was€convicted€of€murder.€€He€had€no€previous€record,€aŠ ,`'* Šclassification€score€of€zero,€no€disciplinary€actions€against€him,€and€a€good€work€history€inĻprison.€€Two€evaluator€concluded€he€would€pose€no€greater€risk€to€public€safety€than€the€averageĻperson.€€He€had€a€home€and€support€to€rely€on€if€released€on€parole.€€Parole€was€denied€simplyĻbecause€of€the€nature€of€the€crime.€€The€court€found€this€reason€alone€was€insufficient.ĢĢĢIn€re€Dave€Bautista€(H026395)ĢPanel€attorney:€€Meredith€FahnĢDate:€October€7,€2003ĢĢą  ąBautista€was€charged€with€possessing€for€sale€marijuana€(Health€&€Saf.€Code,€šš€11359.)€ĻHe€pled€guilty€in€exchange€to€a€16€months€prison€sentence.€€He€later€learned€the€conviction€wasĻconsidered€by€the€Immigration€Service€to€be€an€aggravated€felony.€€Had€he€pled€guilty€toĻtransporting€or€selling€marijuana€(Health€&€Saf.€Code,€šš€11360),€this€would€not€have€beenĻconsidered€to€be€an€aggravated€felony.€€Trial€counsel€never€considered€negotiating€for€a€moreĻserious€charge€in€exchange€to€more€favorable€immigration€consequences.€€The€court€of€appealĻissued€an€order€to€show€cause€returnable€to€the€court€of€appeal.€€(Staff€attorney€Vicki€Firstman)ĢĢĢIn€re€Natalie€Lozano€(H025798)ĢStaff€attorney:€€Dallas€Ō_ŌSacherŌ_ŌĢDate:€€November€6,€2003ĢĢą  ąLozano€pled€no€contest€to€grand€theft€and€petty€theft€with€a€prior€conviction,€based€on€theĻsame€incident.€€Lozano€contended€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€advise€him€that€he€could€not€beĻconvicted€of€petty€theft€and€grand€theft€for€the€same€item,€and€had€he€known€this,€he€would€notĻhave€pled€to€the€petty€theft.€€Trial€counsel€conceded€he€did€not€tell€her€she€should€not€beĻconvicted€of€both€theft€counts,€but€he€did€say€she€should€not€be€punished€for€both.€€The€court€ofĻappeal€issued€an€order€to€show€cause.€ĢĢņ ņń‘ń7/€ń‘ńń’ńŌ% ‡ Ōń’ńOTHERó óń’ńŌ%†ZŌń’ńŠ Š  ŠPeople€v,€Melvin€Dale€(H024067)ĢAttorney:€Seth€FlagsbergĢDate:€€January€21,€2003ĢĢą  ąDefendant€had€a€court€trial€on€the€prior€conviction.€€The€court€found€insufficient€evidenceĻthat€his€prior€conviction€for€violating€Penal€Code€section€245€was€a€strike.€€The€prosecutionĻappealed.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€dismissed,€stating€the€order€is€not€appealable€under€Penal€CodeĻsection€1238.€€The€opinion€was€published,€but€upon€a€petition€for€review,€the€Supreme€CourtĻordered€a€grant€and€hold.€€(Santa€Clara€Public€Defenderššs€Office)ĢĢĢRoman€Vara€v.€the€People€€(H024928€et€al.)Š ,`'* ŠPanel€attorney:€Gerald€ClausenĢDate:€€October€28,€2003ĢĢą  ąA€jury€convicted€Roman€Vara€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault€against€a€minor€whichĻwas€witnessed€by€a€second€minor.€€While€the€appeal€was€appending,€appellate€counsel€sought€toĻdiscover€in€the€juvenile€court€whether€there€were€any€material€information€in€the€juvenile€files€ofĻthe€minors€which€would€have€been€relevant€at€trial.€€The€People€opposed€the€motion.€€TheĻjuvenile€court€denied€the€motion€to€disclose€information€from€the€juvenile€files,€ruling€that€theyĻwere€not€adjudicated€for€committing€a€crime€under€Welfare€and€Institutions€Code€section€707,Ļand€the€court€does€not€grant€discovery€motions€unless€there€is€an€adjudication€for€a€section€707Ļoffense.€€Vara€appealed.€€In€the€meantime,€the€court€of€appeal€reversed€the€conviction€on€the€firstĻappeal,€though€he€could€be€retried.€€In€the€appeal€from€the€discovery€motion,€county€counselĻpurported€to€represent€the€juvenile€court€and€substituted€in€for€the€Attorney€Generalššs€Office.€ĻThe€court€of€appeal€held:€(1)€The€juvenile€court€was€not€a€party€and€could€not€be€represented€onĻappeal€and€county€counsel€did€not€properly€substitute€in€as€it€did€not€comply€with€the€rules€ofĻcourt€for€substitution€of€a€party.€€Further,€the€brief€submitted€by€county€counsel€should€not€beĻconsidered€as€an€amicus€brief€because€the€rules€of€court€for€filing€an€amicus€brief€were€notĻfollowed;€nonetheless,€the€court€of€appeal€considered€the€brief€so€that€respondentššs€view€could€beĻvoiced.€€(2)€€The€juvenile€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€the€discovery€motion€because€aĻstandard€practice€of€denying€discovery€in€all€cases€where€there€is€not€an€adjudication€for€aĻsection€707€offense€was€not€a€case„specific€application€of€discretion.€€(3)€€The€appeal€was€notĻmoot€because€appellant€could€be€retried.€€(Staff€attorney€Vicki€Firstman)ĢĢĢĢĢĢ