| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
B344569
|
In re Lynex
Trial court erred by requiring petitioner to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the Racial Justice Act to secure appointment of counsel. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
H. Bendix | Feb. 23, 2026 |
|
24-1921
|
U.S. v. Castro Alavez
District court erroneously instructed jury that the government need not prove defendant's intent to possess a specified drug and quantity for the purposes of 21 U.S.C. section 841(b)(1). |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
R. Desai | Feb. 23, 2026 |
|
E085722
|
Flareau v. Superior Court (People)
Trial court erroneously denied mental health diversion, where defendant's conduct was motivated by both his mental health diagnoses and another factor the court deemed "more motivating." |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
C. Codrington | Feb. 20, 2026 |
|
D086351
|
People v. Gutierrez
Enhancement for arson committed in area proclaimed to be in state of emergency not supported by evidence where People failed to provide proof regarding the geographical scope of the proclamation. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
T. Do | Feb. 19, 2026 |
|
D085406
|
Bishop v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.
Former public employee's public benefits could be forfeited after he pleaded guilty to felony charge despite trial court reducing his conviction from felony to misdemeanor. |
Government, Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. McConnell | Feb. 19, 2026 |
|
E085256
|
People v. T.B.
Penal Code section 2679 does not require a surrogate decisionmaker's consent before the court may make a finding that would authorize electroconvulsive therapy on defendants who lack capacity to consent. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Raphael | Feb. 19, 2026 |
|
23-3848
|
U.S. v. Ho-Romero
District court erred in applying the obstruction of justice enhancement without making the requisite "willful" mens rea finding--i.e., that defendant acted with the purpose of obstructing justice. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Berzon | Feb. 19, 2026 |
|
24-5966
|
U.S. v. Brandenburg
A non-public-facing security response to a threat may qualify as a "substantial disruption of governmental functions" under U.S. Sentencing Guideline 2A6.1(b)(4)(A). |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. McKeown | Feb. 18, 2026 |
|
A169256
|
People v. Alston
Trial court's failure to provide any reasons at all for overruling defense objection to peremptory challenge based on presumptively invalid reasons required reversal. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
G. Burns | Feb. 18, 2026 |
|
F087625
|
Modification: People v. Dixon
Defendant's grand jury transcripts were not admissible under Penal Code section 1172.6(d)(3)'s hearsay exception. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence |
|
K. Meehan | Feb. 17, 2026 |
|
B339253
|
People v. Diaz
Trial court was not required to consider criminal defendant's youth during resentencing proceedings where it determined she was a direct aider and abettor who acted with intent to kill. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
G. Weingart | Feb. 12, 2026 |
|
A171602
|
People v. Flores
Probation condition permitting warrantless searches of drug-possession-for-sale defendant's electronic devices and requiring disclosure of passwords was not overbroad. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
T. Desautels | Feb. 12, 2026 |
|
D084024
|
People v. Zapata
Known law enforcement officer's continuing pressure for custodial undercover operation into suspect who had invoked his Miranda rights amounted to a custodial interrogation and rendered incriminating statements inadmissible. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
D. Rubin | Feb. 11, 2026 |
|
G063347
|
Anaheim Police Dept. v. Crockett
Substantial evidence supported granting gun violence restraining order against father of person who threatened a mass shooting because father failed to adequately secure his firearms and ammunition from his son. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Bancroft | Feb. 18, 2026 |
|
24-1878
|
U.S. v. Engstrom
Because defendant failed to provide a complete debrief to the government as required for safety-valve relief, district court erred in imposing a sentence below the statutory minimum. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
R. Nelson | Feb. 6, 2026 |
|
D086608
|
People v. Gomez
No Racial Justice Act violation where prosecutor's "John the dog" analogy to demonstrate circumstantial evidence was innocuous. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Kelety | Feb. 5, 2026 |
|
B329296
|
People v. Heaps
Judicial assistant's ex parte response to note from deliberating jurors violated criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights because there was no evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of prejudice. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
H. Bendix | Feb. 4, 2026 |
|
B347381
|
Modification: Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles)
LAPD nondisclosure order prohibiting Microsoft from notifying USC of the existence of warrant did not violate the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) or Microsoft's First Amendment rights. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
Feb. 3, 2026 | |
|
D083172
|
Modification: People v. Aguilar
Trial court's failure to investigate potential juror's confusion invalidated peremptory challenge to strike that juror when there was a possibility that challenge was race-related. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
W. Dato | Feb. 2, 2026 |
|
S287164
|
Sellers v. Superior Court (People)
Small amount of loose marijuana in rear floor of vehicle did not violate open container prohibition because it was not in an imminently usable condition or readily accessible. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
G. Liu | Jan. 30, 2026 |
|
F087625
|
People v. Dixon
Defendant's grand jury transcripts were not admissible under Penal Code section 1172.6(d)(3)'s hearsay exception. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence |
|
K. Meehan | Jan. 28, 2026 |
|
G065447
|
Siam v. Superior Court (People)
Trial court abused its discretion by concluding defendant's symptoms would not respond to treatment and was not suitable for mental health diversion despite unopposed opinion of qualified mental health expert. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
T. Delaney | Jan. 27, 2026 |
|
B338353
|
People v. Grandberry
Trial court did not err in declining to dismiss defendant's prior strikes because Penal Code section 1385(c) applies to enhancements, not prior strikes. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
K. Yegan | Jan. 23, 2026 |
|
E086720
|
Harmon v. Superior Court (People)
Public defender representation for postconviction habeas proceedings is discretionary under Government Code section 27706(g). |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
F. Menetrez | Jan. 22, 2026 |
|
E086512
|
People v. Superior Court (Lashelle)
Prosecutor's failure to file a formal misdemeanor complaint within 25 days of defendant's DUI citation did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
R. Fields | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
24-482
|
Ellingburg v. U.S.
Because restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act constitutes criminal punishment, its retroactive application to offenses committed before its enactment violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
B. Kavanaugh | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
B343556
|
People v. Craig
Criminal defendant had statutory right to appeal where superior court denied his unauthorized petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 on the merits rather than merely not responding. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Segal | Jan. 20, 2026 |
|
B333692
|
People v. Rodriguez
In denying defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing request, trial court properly relied on preliminary hearing transcripts to frame defendant's theory of conviction despite transcript's possible inadmissibility. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence |
|
M. Stratton | Jan. 20, 2026 |
|
B347381
|
Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles)
LAPD nondisclosure order prohibiting Microsoft from notifying USC of the existence of warrant did not violate the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) or Microsoft's First Amendment rights. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
A. Tamzarian | Jan. 16, 2026 |
|
A167545
|
People v. McCowan
California's firearm licensing scheme and Penal Code sections 25850, 30605, and 32310 are not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted in *Bruen*. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
M. Langhorne Wilson | Jan. 15, 2026 |