California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Mitchell is that defendants who agreed to upper term sentences as part of plea bargains may seek retroactive application of Penal Code section 1170(b)'s amended jury trial requirements to their nonfinal judgments, under circumstances where the defendant did not validly waive the later-created statutory rights at the time of the original plea.

The Rule of Nuanmanee v. Superior Court is that a defendant has not been "brought to trial" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1382 when the trial court holds hearings on motions in limine but cannot empanel a jury due to the court's administrative policy, under circumstances where the court has a standing practice of reserving certain days for non-jury matters that prevents jury empanelment on the statutory deadline.

The Rule of People v. Lopez-Tapia is that the lower term presumption under Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) requires evidence that childhood trauma was a contributing factor to the specific offense, not merely that trauma contributed to general gang involvement, under circumstances where a defendant claims childhood trauma should trigger mandatory lower term sentencing.

The Rule of People v. Wilmot is that a trial court commits prejudicial error when it modifies a CALCRIM jury instruction to require that a killing be "unintentional" for voluntary manslaughter, under circumstances where the modification incorrectly suggests that an intentional killing in the heat of passion cannot qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes such as conspiracy and trespass with intent to interfere has a constitutional right to present evidence of his good faith but mistaken belief that his conduct was legally justified under the necessity defense, even though the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant relied on legal opinions advising that his actions were lawful.

The Rule of People v. Mijares is that a defendant's attack remains the but-for cause and proximate cause of death even when the victim suffers from serious preexisting medical conditions, under circumstances where the coroner testifies that the defendant's assault caused the death and the victim would have survived at least several more years absent the attack.

The Rule of People v. Morris is that under Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2), a nonkiller defendant must aid or abet the actual killer in the lethal act itself, not just the underlying felony, under the amended felony-murder rule where the defendant acted with intent to kill.

The Rule of People v. Berch is that felony false imprisonment based on menace does not require a threat to inflict force that is greater than necessary to effectuate restraint on a person's liberty, under circumstances where menace involves a threat to inflict injury upon another person.

The Rule of People v. Moss is that a trial court may reimpose an upper term sentence during Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing without additional jury findings or defendant stipulation to aggravating factors, under circumstances where the defendant was originally sentenced to an upper term.

The Rule of People v. Lopez is that defendants who petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 are not categorically ineligible for relief merely because they could have challenged allegedly ambiguous jury instructions on direct appeal from their original conviction, under circumstances where the petitioner alleges they were convicted under a now-invalid theory of imputed malice due to instructional ambiguity.

The Rule of In re Kowalczyk is that trial courts may only deny bail in noncapital cases for offenses specified in California Constitution article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), and when setting monetary bail, must generally set it in an amount that is reasonably attainable for the defendant based on an individualized assessment of the totality of circumstances, under circumstances where pretrial detention is not warranted under section 12 subdivisions (b) or (c).

The Rule of People v. Stayner is that a defendant's statement "I prefer not to talk now" during a Miranda advisement does not constitute an unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights when the defendant subsequently agrees to be interviewed at a different location, under circumstances where the defendant was told he was not under arrest, voluntarily agreed to travel with FBI agents, and later voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and signed a waiver form before making any incriminating statements.

The Rule of People v. Mohammed is that trial courts lack inherent jurisdiction to correct unauthorized sentences once judgment is final and execution has begun, under circumstances where the defendant has not timely appealed and the court acts solely based on the unauthorized sentence rule.

The Rule of Garner v. California Victim Compensation Board is that a murder conviction that was valid under the law in effect at the time of trial is not "erroneous" within the meaning of Penal Code section 4900, under circumstances where the Legislature subsequently changed the definition of murder and the conviction was vacated under Penal Code section 1172.6 based on the new definition.

The Rule of The People v. The North River Insurance Company is that a defendant's appearance through counsel under Penal Code section 977 waiver is sufficient to trigger mandatory bond exoneration under Penal Code section 1305(c)(1), and courts may properly condition such exoneration on payment of extradition costs recoverable under section 1306(b), under circumstances where the defendant has been extradited from out-of-state custody and appears through counsel while in local custody.

The Rule of People v. Emrick is that probation conditions cannot delegate excessive judicial authority to probation departments to determine the nature of sanctions and cannot deny custody credits for time in residential treatment without a knowing and voluntary waiver, under circumstances where conditions give probation officers open-ended discretion to jail probationers based on unilateral determinations of treatment non-completion.

The Rule of Jessica M. is that section 3051's youth offender parole provisions do not unconstitutionally amend an initiative statute when the initiative made only technical restatements and clarifications to existing sentencing provisions without substantive changes, under circumstances where the challenged statutory provisions were not integral to accomplishing the electorate's goals in enacting the initiative.

The Rule of Bobo v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court is that a trial court abuses its discretion when denying misdemeanor diversion by relying solely on facts inherent in the qualifying offense without connecting them to the underlying purposes of the misdemeanor diversion statute, under circumstances where the charged offense is not specifically excluded from the diversion program.

The Rule of People v. Hardy is that assault weapons, short-barreled shotguns, large capacity magazines, and silencers are not protected "arms" under the Second Amendment, and regulations requiring firearm transfers through licensed dealers do not meaningfully constrain the right to keep and bear arms, under circumstances where defendants mount facial constitutional challenges to California's firearms restrictions.

The Rule of People v. Bertsch and Hronis is that a defendant's extreme religious beliefs alone do not render him mentally incompetent under Penal Code section 1367 if he is unwilling, rather than unable, to cooperate with counsel, under circumstances where the defendant understands the proceedings and can rationally assist in his defense despite his religious convictions.

The Rule of People v. C.F. is that trial counsel renders ineffective assistance when failing to request a no-cost court reporter for a hearing on involuntary antipsychotic medication, under circumstances where the hearing provides the sole evidentiary basis for the court's order and the failure to secure a reporter is tantamount to waiver of the right to appeal.

The Rule of The People v. The Superior Court of Riverside County is that a former prosecutor must be disqualified from presiding over a Racial Justice Act evidentiary hearing when they were directly involved in making charging decisions and present at staffing meetings where homicide filing decisions were made during the relevant time period being analyzed for institutional bias, under circumstances where the judge's personal involvement in the decision-making process being scrutinized might cause an objective observer to reasonably doubt the judge's impartiality.

The Rule of In re Sebastian C. is that placement in a family home with supervision and programming provided by a community-based agency can meet the requirements of a less restrictive program, under circumstances where the community-based nonresidential service program provides the programming and services rather than just the family home itself.

The Rule of People v. Bradley is that the One Strike law permits only a single sentence per count based on qualifying circumstances, and the Habitual Sexual Offender law and One Strike law are alternative sentencing schemes requiring the trial court to choose only one, under circumstances where a defendant is convicted of qualifying sex offenses with multiple proven One Strike circumstances and prior convictions.

The Rule of People v. Deen is that a trial court must conduct an objective evaluation of whether a prospective juror's circumstances would prevent or substantially interfere with their ability to act with entire impartiality, even when the juror states they can be fair, under circumstances where a panelist has personal relationships with victims or witnesses, has received detailed case information from prospective witnesses, and expresses concerns about their ability to be impartial.

The Rule of People v. Player is that a jury's not-true finding on a personal firearm use enhancement does not preclude a resentencing court from finding the defendant was the actual killer in a Penal Code section 1172.6 proceeding, under circumstances where the jury convicted the defendant of murder despite the not-true weapon enhancement finding.

The Rule of In re Melson is that the prosecution must correct false testimony from key eyewitnesses regarding what they previously told police during their identification process, even if the false statements appear to result from faulty memory rather than intentional perjury, under circumstances where the prosecutor knew or should have known the testimony was false based on available police interview transcripts and the false testimony could have contributed to the verdict.

The Rule of People v. Newt is that "receiving" a large-capacity magazine under Penal Code section 32310(a) requires evidence beyond mere possession, specifically evidence as to the provenance of the magazine (such as that defendant bought or received it after January 1, 2000, from someone who manufactured, imported, kept for sale, offered for sale, gave, or lent it), under circumstances where the prosecution seeks a felony conviction for "receiving" rather than a misdemeanor conviction for "possessing" under subdivision (c).

The Rule of People v. Nielsen is that a trial court's failure to make express findings under Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) does not require reversal when the record demonstrates the court understood and considered childhood trauma as a mitigating factor and weighed it against aggravating circumstances, under circumstances where the defendant made an initial showing that childhood trauma contributed to drug addiction and criminal conduct, but no party explicitly raised section 1170(b)(6) at sentencing.

The Rule of In re J.H. is that victims have the constitutional and statutory right to present victim impact statements at juvenile court six-month review hearings under section 875, and courts may consider such statements when limited to components relevant to the minor's rehabilitation and empathy development, under circumstances where a juvenile's baseline confinement term is being reviewed for potential reduction.

The Rule of Armstrong v. Superior Court is that Penal Code section 1000.7 grants probation departments, not trial courts, the authority to determine whether defendants meet statutory criteria for young adult deferred entry of judgment programs, under circumstances where the Legislature has explicitly assigned this determination to the probation department through clear statutory language.

The Rule of People v. Avena is that a defendant who went to trial may obtain relief under Penal Code section 1473.7 by showing a reasonable probability that they would have accepted an immigration-safe plea and that the prosecution and court would have accepted such a plea, under circumstances where intervening case law created immigration-safe plea options that were not available when counsel initially represented the defendant.

The Rule of In re E.J. is that Penal Code section 29820, which prohibits minors adjudged wards of the juvenile court for specified offenses from possessing firearms until age 30, is facially constitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, under circumstances where the prohibition is based on a prior juvenile adjudication for qualifying criminal conduct.

The Rule of In re Bergstrom is that Penal Code section 292 validly implements California Constitution article I, section 12's bail exception by defining specified sexual offenses against children as involving acts of violence and great bodily harm, under circumstances where the constitutional provision does not itself define these terms and the Legislature has authority to implement this constitutional bail exception.

The Rule of People v. Chang is that imperfect self-defense is unavailable when a defendant's belief in the need for self-defense is based entirely on delusion without any objective correlate that could plausibly relate to a reasonable need for self-defense, under circumstances where the defendant shoots at peace officers based solely on delusional beliefs about CIA persecution without any objective threatening conduct by the officers.

The Rule of People v. Tzul is that a defendant's handwritten note found at a crime scene stating he found victims "having sex" and that this "fills me with rage" is admissible as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's state of mind for provocation defense, under circumstances where the statement about what defendant observed is not hearsay when offered to show defendant's belief rather than truth of the observation, and the statement about defendant's emotional reaction is admissible hearsay under Evidence Code section 1250's state-of-mind exception.

The Rule of People v. Tzul is that a handwritten statement found at a crime scene expressing the defendant's rage and belief about what victims were doing has significant probative value for provocation defense that cannot be substantially outweighed by prejudice concerns under Evidence Code section 352, under circumstances where the statement is the only evidence of provocation and is central to the defense theory.

The Rule of People v. Sanchez is that when a court corrects a clerical error in calculating prison time on an abstract of judgment, it lacks jurisdiction to modify other aspects of a final sentence absent specific statutory authorization, under circumstances where the original sentencing court properly sentenced defendant to separate felony prison terms and misdemeanor county jail terms but the abstract incorrectly included misdemeanor time in the total state prison calculation.

The Rule of People v. Perez is that police officers may not order a person out of a residence based solely on reasonable suspicion without probable cause and a warrant, even when the officers remain outside the residence, under circumstances where the person is seized while still inside the home.

The Rule of People v. Taft is that when calculating presentence custody credit for noncontinuous periods of custody, the total days of actual confinement must be aggregated first, and then matching conduct credit calculated on that total, under circumstances where a defendant served time before probation was granted and additional time after probation was violated.

The Rule of Scott Meiner v. The Superior Court of Orange County is that an Apple Pay account constitutes a "financial account" for purposes of probation search limitations and must be excluded from warrantless probation searches when the probation terms expressly exclude "financial accounts," under circumstances where the probation terms specifically limit search authorization and do not extend to financial accounts.

The Rule of People v. Jones is that a defendant confined in jail in one county cannot willfully fail to appear for sentencing in another county, and the prosecution must prove a willful failure to appear with admissible evidence including certified court records, under circumstances where a defendant enters a Cruz waiver plea agreement.

The Rule of People v. Dunn is that a trial court must give CALCRIM No.

The Rule of In re O.F. is that a juvenile court cannot transfer a minor to criminal court based on evidence that does not meet the clear and convincing standard or without proper consideration of mandatory rehabilitative factors, under circumstances where the minor has demonstrated consistent willingness to engage in available treatment and programming while in custody.

The Rule of People v. Anderson is that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to CalECPA violations, permitting admission of electronic device evidence when law enforcement reasonably believed they had valid consent from an authorized possessor, under circumstances where a deceased person's next of kin consents to search the decedent's phone and no other person has a stronger claim to possession.

The Rule of People v. Valencia is that warrantless entry into a home during hot pursuit of a fleeing felon is justified by exigent circumstances when officers are pursuing a suspect who committed a dangerous felony and poses ongoing risks to public safety, and once lawfully inside, police need not obtain a warrant to continue addressing an evolving standoff situation, under circumstances involving a high-speed chase ending at the suspect's residence followed by barricading and armed resistance.

The Rule of People v. Nelson is that a trial court may properly deny mental health diversion when it finds as trier of fact that the defendant's mental health disorders were not a significant factor in the commission of the charged offenses, under circumstances where the court expressly rejects expert testimony linking mental illness to criminal conduct and finds the defendant poses a public safety risk based on extensive criminal history.

The Rule of People v. Superior Court (Taylor) is that mental health diversion may not be granted when no evidence supports that the defendant will comply with treatment in the community, even where experts opine the defendant would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if treated, under circumstances where the defendant has a documented history of abandoning treatment facilities and refusing prescribed medication.

The Rule of People v. Uceda is that a trial court must instruct sua sponte on grossly negligent discharge of a firearm (Penal Code § 246.3, subd.

The Rule of People v. Morgan is that assault is not a lesser included offense of resisting an executive officer by use of force or violence under Penal Code section 69(a), under circumstances where the defendant's forceful resistance does not require a "present ability" to commit violent injury as required for assault.

The Rule of People v. Gonzalez is that Assembly Bill No.

The Rule of In re Christian V. is that a juvenile case becomes final for Estrada retroactivity purposes when the time to appeal the dispositional order expires or direct review is exhausted, regardless of whether the minor remains on probation or whether subsequent post-judgment orders are entered, under circumstances where the minor did not timely appeal the original dispositional order.

The Rule of Flareau is that a trial court abuses its residual discretion when denying mental health diversion based on finding that other factors were "more" motivating than the defendant's mental disorder, under circumstances where the defendant is eligible for diversion and the mental disorder was at least a contributing factor to the offense.

The Rule of The People v. T.B. is that "no less onerous alternatives" in Penal Code section 2679(b) refers to medical alternatives to the proposed organic therapy, not to alternative procedural methods of obtaining consent, under circumstances where an inmate patient lacks capacity to consent to electroconvulsive therapy and the court must authorize nonconsensual ECT.

The Rule of *People v. Alston* is that under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, a trial court must expressly explain its reasons on the record when ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge, including making findings on whether presumptively invalid reasons were rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, under circumstances where the prosecutor's stated reasons for the challenge include distrust of law enforcement by a prospective juror who is a member of a cognizable group.

The Rule of People v. Dixon is that grand jury proceeding transcripts and police reports containing witness statements are inadmissible at Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearings, under circumstances where the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the documents constitute multiple levels of hearsay without applicable exceptions.

The Rule of People v. Flores is that an electronics search condition for probation is constitutional and reasonable when the defendant used electronic devices as integral tools in the commission of the underlying offense, under circumstances where the defendant used internet-based platforms and VOIP technology to facilitate drug sales and conceal their identity.

The Rule of The People v. Zapata is that when a suspect invokes and does not waive the right to counsel, and a known law enforcement officer continues to "stimulate" a Perkins operation in a manner that amounts to a custodial interrogation, the suspect's resulting incriminating statements are inadmissible, under circumstances where the known officer's actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and created a police-dominated atmosphere of compulsion.

The Rule of Esparza v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County is that incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701 may not be presumed from a prior grave disability finding under the LPS Act, under circumstances where a conservatorship has been established based on inability to provide for basic personal needs.

The Rule of People v. Heaps is that ex parte communications with a deliberating jury concerning a juror's ability to deliberate require reversal unless the prosecution proves harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, under circumstances where the trial court fails to notify counsel of the jury's note raising competency concerns and the record does not establish how the jury resolved those concerns.

The Rule of Sellers v. Superior Court is that to violate Health and Safety Code section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4) (open container of marijuana in vehicle), marijuana must be of a usable quantity, in imminently usable condition, and readily accessible to an occupant, under circumstances where the marijuana could be consumed with minimal effort while driving, operating, or riding in the vehicle.

The Rule of People v. Aguilar is that a prosecutor's peremptory challenge based on alleged "juror confusion" is presumptively invalid under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, subdivision (g)(1)(C), and requires the trial court to confirm that the asserted confused behavior actually occurred based on the court's own observations, under circumstances where the prospective juror is perceived as a member of a protected group and gives clear, consistent answers regarding the legal concept in question.

The Rule of **People v. Diaz** is that trial courts are not required to expressly state they have considered a defendant's youth when determining whether the defendant acted with express malice/intent to kill in section 1172.6 proceedings, under circumstances where the court is aware of the defendant's age and counsel argues youth as a mitigating factor but the court finds the defendant personally intended the victims' deaths.

The Rule of People v. Gomez is that use of animal imagery in criminal proceedings does not violate the Racial Justice Act when the animal reference is benign, endearing, and used solely to explain legal concepts rather than to dehumanize or exhibit racial bias, under circumstances where an objective observer would understand the comparison relates to the state of evidence rather than character traits.

The Rule of In re Lynex is that to obtain appointed counsel under the California Racial Justice Act, an indigent habeas petitioner need only plead a "plausible allegation" of a violation of Penal Code section 745(a), which is an "extremely low" and "minimal pleading requirement" that does not require a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, under circumstances where the petitioner seeks counsel to prosecute racial bias claims in criminal proceedings.

The Rule of People v. Dixon is that grand jury proceeding transcripts are not admissible under Penal Code section 1172.6(d)(3)'s hearsay exception for evidence previously admitted at a prior hearing or trial, under circumstances where the Legislature used specific statutory language referring to "hearings" and "trials" while grand jury proceedings are designated as "proceedings" or "sessions" in the statutory scheme and lack adversarial safeguards.

The Rule of Joel Praneet Siam is that when determining whether a defendant's symptoms would respond to treatment under Penal Code section 1001.36(c)(1), a trial court may not override a qualified mental health expert's opinion with its own lay opinion about treatment responsiveness, under circumstances where a licensed psychologist provides an uncontroverted expert opinion that the defendant's mental disorder symptoms would respond to treatment.

The Rule of Microsoft Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County is that a trial court may issue a nondisclosure order prohibiting an electronic service provider from notifying its enterprise customer of a search warrant's existence, under circumstances where the court has reviewed a sealed affidavit and found that disclosure could cause adverse results enumerated in CalECPA, even when the provider proposes to notify only a "trusted contact" at the customer organization who is not the target of the investigation.

The Rule of People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Lashelle) is that the failure to file a misdemeanor complaint within the 25-day period specified in Penal Code section 853.6 does not deprive the government of the right to demand a cited person's presence in court and does not render the individual "automatically freed from any restraint," under circumstances where the defendant signed a written promise to appear and remains subject to statutory consequences for non-appearance including criminal prosecution, fines, and arrest.

The Rule of People v. J.C. is that the firearm prohibition under Penal Code section 29820, subdivision (b), does not apply to minors adjudicated as juvenile court wards for brandishing an imitation firearm under Penal Code section 417.4, under circumstances where section 417.4 is not among the statutorily enumerated offenses in section 29805 that trigger the firearm ban.

The Rule of People v. Gutierrez is that a Governor's state of emergency proclamation is subject to independent legal interpretation by courts, not jury determination, and when a proclamation limits emergency zones to specific "high hazard areas" to be identified by state agencies rather than declaring a statewide emergency, the prosecution must prove the crime occurred within those specifically identified areas, under circumstances where the proclamation's plain language directs agencies to identify particular zones rather than declaring the emergency exists throughout the entire state.

The Rule of Bishop v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Association is that a public employee suffers a "conviction" within the meaning of Government Code section 7522.74 when the employee pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a job-related felony, regardless of whether the court later reduces the offense to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b), under circumstances where the employee pleaded guilty to a felony charge before any reduction occurred.

The Rule of Semaan v. Mosier is that court-appointed receivers are protected by quasi-judicial immunity for their discretionary acts and decisions made in their capacity as receiver, under circumstances where the receiver must exercise judgment or discretion in performing their judicial functions.

The Rule of People v. Riggs is that an attorney's temporary administrative suspension from the State Bar for trust account reporting violations does not per se constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, under circumstances where the attorney was suspended for administrative noncompliance rather than resignation with disciplinary charges pending.

The Rule of People v. Perez is that impoundment of a legally parked vehicle solely to prevent future unlawful driving by an unlicensed driver does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment's community caretaking function, under circumstances where the vehicle poses no present danger to public safety or traffic flow.

The Rule of Meiner is that Apple Pay accounts constitute "financial accounts" under probation search terms that exclude such accounts from warrantless searches, under circumstances where the probation conditions explicitly exclude "financial accounts" from the search authorization and the Apple Pay account is licensed as a money transmitter and regulated by financial authorities.

The Rule of People v. Espiritu is that when a trial court fails to make a meaningful inquiry into whether proffered reasons for exercising peremptory challenges fall into presumptively invalid categories under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, the defendant's initial objection under the statute preserves appellate review of that procedural failure, under circumstances where defense counsel objected to a peremptory challenge but did not specifically identify the potential presumptive invalidity below.

The Rule of People v. Harzan is that a trial court prejudicially violates a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense when it conditions the exclusion of highly prejudicial prior misconduct evidence on the defendant's waiver of an entrapment defense, under circumstances where the prior misconduct evidence is not relevant to the objective entrapment standard under California law.

The Rule of People v. Landrine is that a trial court may not find satisfactory performance in mental health diversion unless the defendant substantially complies with the requirements imposed on diversion, under circumstances where the defendant commits dozens of new crimes while in the diversion program despite express warnings that any new crimes would result in termination.

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes may present a mistake of law defense based on good faith reliance on legal advice about the necessity defense, even when the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant obtained legal opinions from qualified professionals regarding the lawfulness of his conduct and relied on those opinions in good faith.

The Rule of *People v. Parker B.* is that when a juvenile court dismisses a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 after adjudication without qualification, the dismissal encompasses both the petition and all findings made on the offenses alleged therein, thereby satisfying section 786(d)'s requirement that "the finding on that offense was dismissed" for purposes of sealing records involving Penal Code section 707(b) offenses committed at age 14 or older, under circumstances where the juvenile has satisfactorily completed probation and the court has not expressly limited the scope of its dismissal.

The Rule of People v. Pineda is that at section 1172.6 resentencing evidentiary hearings, previously admitted hearsay testimony from preliminary hearings is admissible if it meets a current hearsay exception, including the declaration against interest exception when the statements subjected the declarant to risk of criminal liability.

The Rule of People v. Tourville is that a trial court abuses its discretion in denying mental health diversion based on general public safety concerns beyond the statutory definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" (risk of committing a super strike), and cannot require a defendant to plead guilty to obtain the same treatment program that would be available under diversion, under circumstances where the court finds the defendant eligible and suitable for diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.

The Rule of The People v. Robinson is that Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (f) must be construed conjunctively to exclude from resentencing only those individuals who have been convicted of a qualifying sexually violent offense AND sentenced to death or life without parole, under circumstances where Senate Bill No.

The Rule of People v. Superior Court (Feghhi) is that an officer's failure to inform a magistrate in a search warrant application that a DUI defendant requested a breath test does not undermine the validity of the warrant authorizing seizure of a blood sample, under circumstances where the warrant was otherwise supported by probable cause based on objective signs of intoxication and the defendant's involvement in a fatal DUI crash.