6th District Court of Appeal, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
automatic /
November 3, 2026
The Sixth District held in a partially published opinion that Racial Justice Act statistics comparing Latinx overrepresentation among life-without-parole prisoners with the general population, rather than with similarly situated murder defendants, did not make a prima facie showing of disparate special-circumstance charging.
1st District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
November 3, 2026
The Court of Appeal affirmed a 77-years-to-life resentence, holding that the mitigating circumstance in Penal Code section 1385(c)(2)(A) requires the same showing needed to prove a disparate-sentencing violation under the Racial Justice Act, and that statewide statistics without individual comparators did not meet it.
6th District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
November 2, 2026
This decision clarifies the limits of implied malice murder liability for drug suppliers in household overdose cases.
1st District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 28, 2026
People v. Northington: premature juror excusal requires a new trial and assault acquittal.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 27, 2026
People v. Bray: trial courts need an applicable sentencing-law change to recall a sentence.
1st District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The court affirmed. The jury was instructed that first degree murder required a deliberate decision to kill—careful weighing of considerations and a knowing choice—not a rash, impulsive decision made without careful thought. By returning that verdict, the jury necessarily rejected the state of mind that would support heat of passion: intense emotion obscuring reason and causing action without due deliberation and reflection.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The Second District affirmed. A defendant is statutorily entitled to make a suppression motion at the preliminary hearing, and that motion is part of the hearing that section 859b requires to occur within its specified time. The prosecution could not preserve the complaint by separating the evidentiary issue from the preliminary hearing and postponing it beyond the deadline over the defendant’s objection.
3rd District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The Third District reversed the judgment for sentencing purposes and ordered a full resentencing. The upper term could not rest on aggravating findings that duplicated elements of the crimes or the firearm enhancement, and the relevant danger-to-society finding required a comparison showing that the manner of committing the offense was distinctively worse than other ways the crime could be committed. The record and findings did not provide a valid, harmless foundation for the sentence imposed.
California Supreme Court, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 26, 2026
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Court of Appeal and held that section 417.3 requires objective fear only. The statutory words focus on the way the firearm is displayed and ask whether that conduct would cause a reasonable person apprehension or fear. They do not say that the identified victim must actually have experienced fear. The Legislature has expressly required actual, reasonable fear in other crimes, including the criminal-threats statute, and its omission of comparable language here was meaningful.
4th District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 22, 2026
The Fourth District reversed. Section 11358(d) states that qualifying cultivation conduct is punishable by imprisonment under Penal Code section 1170(h). Section 1170(h)(4), in turn, expressly provides that nothing in that subdivision prevents a court from granting probation or suspending sentence, or a defendant from seeking relief under section 17(b). Reading those provisions together makes a subdivision (d) offense eligible for treatment as a misdemeanor.
3rd District Court of Appeal, Administrative Law, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 22, 2026
The Third District reversed both transfers. Although juvenile-court jurisdiction can continue after age 18, the Legislature used “minor” deliberately in section 750. Once C.M. became an adult, his residence could not automatically be derived from his parents’ residence. The transfer courts therefore erred at the threshold by treating Mariposa County as his residence without determining where C.M. himself resided.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 22, 2026
The Second District reversed and ordered suppression. An inventory search must be tied to a legitimate caretaking purpose, such as protecting property, protecting police from claims, or removing a vehicle that threatens traffic or public safety. It cannot be used as a substitute for probable cause when officers hope to find evidence. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the exception.
4th District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 21, 2026
The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's order transferring H.J. to adult criminal court after a Proposition 57 fitness hearing, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that H.J. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the two-year juvenile jurisdiction period.
6th District Court of Appeal, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 20, 2026
The Sixth District ordered cell-location evidence suppressed because an armed carjacking investigation did not establish a case-specific emergency excusing a warrant.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 20, 2026
The Ninth Circuit upheld the indictment and a $160,000 forfeiture money judgment against Todd Mumma, holding any Rule 32.2 jury-inquiry error harmless, but vacated the restitution order and remanded to correct a $2,500 arithmetic error.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 20, 2026
The Court of Appeal held that prosecutors forfeited their objection to a renewed Romero motion and upheld dismissal of a prior strike.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 19, 2026
The Second District held that a juvenile’s assault offense was not expressly within the statutory list barring dismissal and record sealing after probation.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 19, 2026
The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of pretrial mental health diversion, holding that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the defendant posed an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike offense.
Appellate Division (Superior Court), Criminal Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 19, 2026
The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court reversed a dismissal of misdemeanor cannabis charges, holding that Penal Code sections 1001.95 and 1001.96 allow dismissal only when the defendant completed all court-ordered diversion conditions by the end of the 24-month period, not on a finding of substantial compliance.
3rd District Court of Appeal, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Litigation
automatic /
October 19, 2026
The Third District affirmed a double-murder conviction, holding in its published portion that counsel may override a defendant's wish to testify at a competency hearing and that substantial evidence supported the finding of competence.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 19, 2026
The Ninth Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion by denying a § 2255 motion without a hearing where the movant and his trial counsel gave conflicting sworn accounts of whether he directed counsel to appeal.
2nd District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 13, 2026
The trial court’s dismissal of a prior strike allegation and acceptance of a defendant’s guilty plea following an indicated sentence is subject to a motion to disqualify under section 170.6.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 13, 2026
Because Stennerson’s reasoning and theory are not clearly irreconcilable with Hemani, we hold that Stennerson remains good law and apply its holding here.
4th District Court of Appeal, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 12, 2026
The Fourth District required case-specific comparators and reliable, relevant statistics to establish good cause for Racial Justice Act discovery.
4th District Court of Appeal, Criminal Law
automatic /
October 9, 2026
This decision clarifies the application of Penal Code section 654's 'single physical act' test in the context of two distinct Vehicle Code offenses that both require causation of bodily injury as part of their actus reus.