Does Prop 47 Make Receiving Stolen Car a Misdemeanor?

Receiving a stolen vehicle, a violation of Penal Code § 496d(a), is not eligible for reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor, however, the following summary of a recent appellate decision suggests People v. Wehr (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 123 might be applied to change precedent. Why would this apply and why would the Fourth Appellate District change its ruling? To read more about this interesting case, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/does-prop-47-make-receiving-stolen-car-a-misdemeanor.html

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Death Sentence.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) is a stigma all criminal defense attorneys seek to avoid, as such a finding, or even the mere allegation of this, can ruin one’s reputation forever. The following summary of a 2020 California Supreme Court opinion concerning Attorney Shinn, now deceased, is instructive on many levels and dramatic on others, as it involves IAC from a 1992 conviction for a 1983 murder of a police officer in Los Angeles. To read about why the California Supreme Court found IAC, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-and-death-sentence.html

SB 1437 Petition Denial Reversed by Appellate Court.

The following 2019 appellate court ruling from the Second Appellate District Court, makes sense in light of the changed legal standards set forth in Clark and Banks. However, in a 2020 opinion (People v. Daniel Isidrio Nuñez (2020 DJDAR 11987), also from the Second Appellate District, the appellate court upheld a Torrance Superior Court ruling from Judge Hector Guzman that such a special circumstance finding was disqualifying as a matter of law. To read more about his earlier ruling, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/sb-1437-petition-denial-reversed-by-appellate-court.html

Franklin Hearings – Judge Can Decide if Testimony Needed.

The following case summary presents a case summary wherein a Van Nuys Superior Court judge decided that no hearing was necessary for the judge to decide what materials to order added to defendant’s file and the Second Appellate District court agreed that this decision was legally proper. In this case, the trial court decided to add a mitigation packet from Amy York, a well-known capital case mitigation expert. We present this summary to educate the reader that this decision is within the discretion of the judge. To read more about this situation, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/franklin-hearings-judge-can-decide-if-testimony-needed.html