Summary: In People v. Campbell, the California Court of Appeal reconsidered whether Sidney Campbell was entitled to resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 following significant developments in California law governing murder liability and resentencing petitions. The case arose after the California Supreme Court transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of People v. Lopez (2025) 19 Cal.5th 639. Although Lopez expanded the circumstances under which petitioners may seek relief, the Court of Appeal ultimately concluded that Campbell remained ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because the jury instructions in his case required a finding that he personally acted with malice.

The Crime and Conviction

Summary: In People v. Lossing, the Court of Appeal held that DUI causing injury under Vehicle Code section 23153 is not a lesser included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code section 191.5, affirming the defendant’s convictions and related credit consequences.

The issue is whether convictions for driving under the influence causing injury under Vehicle Code section 23153 must be dismissed as lesser included offenses of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code section 191.5. Section 954 permits multiple convictions arising from the same act, but a judicially created exception requires dismissal when a defendant is convicted of both a greater offense and a lesser included offense.

Summary: A habeas corpus court has broad equitable authority to craft relief “as the justice of the case may require.” (In re Palmer (2021) 10 Cal.5th 959, 976; Pen. Code, § 1484.) Petitioner Miguel Alberto Esquivias sought habeas relief based solely on Senate Bill No. 620, which gave trial courts discretion to strike previously mandatory firearm enhancements. The superior court granted that targeted relief by striking those enhancements, but declined to reopen the entire sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that habeas relief is not an “all-or-nothing” remedy. The California Supreme Court agreed thatbecause Esquivias’s original sentence was valid and neither the Constitution nor any statute required full resentencing, the habeas court could limit relief to the firearm enhancements.

Factual and Procedural History

Summary: People v. Hernandez addresses when a noncitizen defendant may vacate a criminal conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1) based on a lack of meaningful understanding of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The California Supreme Court held that courts must focus on the defendant’s subjective understanding and evaluate the totality of the circumstances rather than relying solely on written plea advisements. Applying that framework, the Court concluded that Angela Hernandez established both error and prejudice and was therefore entitled to withdraw her plea.

Background

Summary: The Court clarified that when a party strikes a potential juror for BEHAVIOR-BASED REASONS under section 231.7(g)–historically connected to racial stereotypes and implicit bias, the trial court must first CONFIRM the observed behavior and then require the striking party to EXPLAIN its relevance to the case (race-neutral reason) in order to overcome the presumption of invalidity for behavior-based reasons.The trial court here failed to get an explanation from the DA. Attempted murder conviction and life sentence reversed and remanded.

Facts

Summary: Kazarian, challenged his conviction for felony evading a police officer on the ground that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the legal definitions of several Vehicle Code violations that were used to establish the felony offense. The Court of Appeal concluded that any instructional deficiencies were either nonexistent or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the judgment.

Background: In January 2023, Deputy Sheriff Gabriel Dominguez responded to a medical aid call involving an unresponsive driver seated in a pickup truck with its engine running. Emergency personnel were already present and attempting to contact the driver, Kazarian. As Deputy Dominguez approached the vehicle, he observed the defendant suddenly placed the vehicle in drive and nearly collided with a fire truck parked in front of him. He exited the gas station and drove away.

Summary: Pipitone appealed the denial of his petition for writ of mandate challenging the DMV’s revocation of his driving privilege after he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale. The drugs had been discovered during a traffic stop while he was driving. His appeal claimed that there was no basis for finding that his crime involved the use of a motor vehicle, and second, that the DMV failed to prove it received the type of certified court abstract required by Vehicle Code section 13350 before revoking his license. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.

Facts and procedural background:In 2020, law enforcement stopped Pipitone while he was driving and found more than a pound of methamphetamine and other evidence suggesting drug sales. He was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale and transportation-related drug offenses. In 2024, he pleaded no contest to the possession-for-sale charge.

Facts and Procedural Posture

Miguel Sua and Alexander Guthrie, defendants in separate felony cases, sought pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. The prosecution moved under Penal Code section 1054.3(b)(1) to compel each defendant to submit to a mental examination by a prosecution expert. The superior court granted the motions, and the defendants petitioned for writ relief.

• Summary: Yanez argued that his convictions for driving under the influence causing injury should be reversed because that crime is a lesser included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The Court of Appeal concluded otherwise.

Yanez was charged with two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (counts 1 & 2, Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)), driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage causing injury (count 3, Veh. Code,1 § 23153, subd. (a)), driving with a 0.08 blood alcohol content causing injury (count 4, § 23153, subd. (b)), driving under the influence of alcohol in combination with any drug causing injury (count 5, § 23153, subd. (g)), driving without a license (count 6, § 12500, subd. (a)), driving without evidence of financial responsibility (count 7, § 16028, subd. (a)), speeding (count 8, § 22350), speeding over 100 miles per hour (count 9, § 22348, subd. (b)), and failing to yield the right of way (count 10, § 21800, subd. (a)). The information also alleged great bodily injury enhancements (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) as to each victim on counts 3 through 5, and alleged as to counts 1 through 5 that defendant had caused bodily injury or death to more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23558).

Summary:  The United States Supreme Court Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) 588 U.S. 840 (Mitchell), held that where a police officer at the scene of an automobile accident  discovers that one of the drivers suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is unconscious,“the officers’ many responsibilities may be incompatible with the procedures that would be required to obtain a warrant.” Mitchell articulated a “general rule” that exigent circumstances will “almost always” permit a blood test without a warrant.

In People v. Alvarez (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 531 (Alvarez), the police officer encountered the suspect-driver at the hospital sometime after the accident. Alvarez held that the record failed to support a finding of exigency sufficient to excuse the officer’s failure to obtain a blood draw warrant. Here, an unconscious suspect-driver was first contacted by police at the hospital several hours after the accident, and the Court held there was not exigent circumstances excusing a failure to obtain a warrant.