Notable Case Victories

In People v. Jacobs, G056578, I successfully argued on appeal that sheriff’s deputies conducted an unconstitutional detention and search of my homeless client while he was walking in a remote neighborhood and asking residents for food. The case was ultimately remanded for the trial court to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful detention and to give my client the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea.

In People v. Sims, D077024, I argued on appeal that, under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, Assembly Bill No. 1950’s limitation on the maximum duration of felony probation terms constitutes an ameliorative change to the law that applies retroactively to cases that were not final as of the new law’s effective date. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal agreed and remanded the case for resentencing.

In People v. Soto, D076509, the Court of Appeal vacated the trial court’s order granting my client probation and remanded the matter for the trial court to determine whether my client’s probation term must be reduced to two years under Assembly Bill No. 1950, which went into effect on January 1, 2021.

In People v. Cota, D074935, the Court of Appeal found, in a published opinion, that the electronics search probation condition imposed on my client was unreasonable under In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, and remanded for further consideration of a potentially appropriate electronics search condition.

In People v. Ayala, D075074, I argued on appeal that the electronics search probation condition imposed on my client was unreasonable and that this condition was not part of the “stipulated sentence” in his plea agreement, which would have required a certificate of probable cause. The Court of Appeal agreed and concluded that the electronics search probation condition must be stricken as unreasonable under In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113. The court reversed the judgment with directions to strike the electronics search condition but noted that the trial court could impose a more targeted or alternative condition. The trial court was also directed to consider any objection based on my client’s ability to pay the restitution fine and fees.

In People v. Allen, D077563, the Court of Appeal concluded that (1) the trial court erred by imposing a probation condition requiring my client to submit his cell phones and electronic devices to warrantless searches; (2) my client was entitled to remand and resentencing in light of Assembly Bill No. 1950; and (3) the judgment must be vacated, in part, as to any criminal justice administration fee that was unpaid as of July 1, 2021, in the wake of Assembly Bill No. 1869.

In People v. Jauregui, D075277, the Court of Appeal remanded my client’s case for resentencing because the trial court imposed a $1,200 restitution fine under the mistaken belief that $1,200 was the mandatory minimum for that fine under Penal Code section 1202.4.

In People v. Garcia, B297549, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred by failing to hold an ability-to-pay hearing under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, regarding my client’s ability to pay certain fees and fines that were imposed on him. The Court of Appeal remanded the case with directions that the trial court conduct an ability-to-pay hearing.

In People v. Ceja, D077869, the Court of Appeal modified the judgment in my client’s case to vacate the portion of the $154 fee that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021, in the wake of Assembly Bill No. 1869.