Recent Defense Victories

During pretrial proceedings, a psychologist examined defendant at the request of the court and issued a report finding that due to a severe mental illness, defendant had a misperception of his lawyers’ motives, a misunderstanding of the risk involved in his case, a minimizing of his situation, and impaired judgment. The report found defendant was incompetent to stand trial. There was no expert evidence contradicting that conclusion. The trial court thereafter erred in rejecting the opinion without initiating the applicable competency procedures. The error required reversal of the guilt and death verdicts. Read opinion

Defendant was improperly convicted of both assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Penal Code section 245 (b)) and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (section 245 (d)(a).) Read opinion

In 2020, the trial court vacated defendant’s murder conviction under Penal Code section 1170.95, resentenced him on the robbery count and ordered him released for time served. The court also imposed a three year parole term. However, Penal Code section 3001.01, which was enacted before he was resentenced in the case, limits the parole term to two years. Read opinion

Defendant filed a motion under Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate a 2000 conviction based on the lack of proper advisements on immigration consequences. The law requires the court to deem the motion timely in certain circumstances, but also has a discretionary exception that permits the court to deem the motion untimely if the moving party did not act with reasonable diligence. (Section 1473.7 (b)(2).) Defendant in the present case acted with reasonable diligence in getting his motion filed in less that three months after his removal to Mexico. Read opinion

Defendant pled guilty to a weapons violation and admitted a prior prison term enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5(b). The court later erred in failing to strike the prior prison term enhancement following the enactment of Senate Bill 136. Striking the enhancement while maintaining the remainder of the plea agreement would not deny the prosecution the benefit of their agreement because the parties entered into an open plea agreement rather agreeing to a stipulated sentence. Read opinion

Defendant, a former attorney, was convicted of the murder of her husband in a case where she represented herself. There were always questions about her mental competency, but the court should have been aware of the changed circumstances that rendered defendant incompetent to stand trial or represent herself. The court knew of her mental illness, her failure to take medication and her observed problems. The failure to suspend proceedings violated her due process rights. Read opinion