(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order declaring a deed of trust void, in a case where a woman pleaded guilty to grand theft for encumbering a married couple's real property with a fraudulent deed of trust.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a chiropractor, was convicted of charges stemming from a scheme to defraud workers’ compensation insurance carriers. On appeal, Defendant claimed several errors at trial including a sentencing error. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion or prejudicial error.

(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal challenging preliminary injunction requiring defendants lawyer and law firm to provide notice to certain clients that another lawyer who had been employed by the firm had resigned from the bar with disciplinary charges pending and was not authorized to practice law, judgment is affirmed, where: 1) rules governing attorneys' obligations upon resignation from the Bar apply to law corporations; 2) the resigned attorney expressly agreed to send notices, return property and refund unearned fees; 3) the trial court's finding that defendants aided and abetted the resigned attorney's unauthorized practice of law was amply supported; 4) the City is not trying to regulate the practice of law, but to prevent unlawful business practices; 5) declarations by clients amply support the court's determination that there was a probability the People would succeed on the merits of their claims; and 6) it is not apparent how clients' confidential information would be necessary to defend against the People's claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denied District Attorney’s writ of mandate to declare Senate Bill No. 1391 unconstitutional. Juvenile offender, T.D., shot and killed someone when he was 14. The DA filed charges against T.D. directly as an adult. While the case was pending, Proposition 57 was passed to eliminate the DA’s ability to charge minors 14 or younger as adults. Later, SB No. 1391 was passed that prohibited transfers of 14 -15 year-olds to criminal court. The Appeals court found that SB No. 1391 was not unconstitutional and that it was consistent with the intent of Prop 57.

(NY Supreme Court) - 110389

(NY Supreme Court) - 111110

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Allstate Insurance Company brought this action on behalf of the People of the State under Insurance Code section 1871.7. Allstate alleges Defendant guilty of submitting false or fraudulent claims to an insurance company. A jury found in favor of Allstate and imposed over $6 million in civil penalties.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a chiropractor, was convicted of charges stemming from a scheme to defraud workers’ compensation insurance carriers. On appeal, Defendant claimed several errors at trial including a sentencing error. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion or prejudicial error.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $950 sanction imposed on a deputy public defender for violating a reciprocal discovery order by failing to disclose statements taken from a witness. Concluded that there was no discovery violation under the circumstances here.

(California Court of Appeal) - In the People's appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1238(a)(1), challenging the trial court's order to set aside certain counts of charges against defendant for using false statements in the offer or sale of a security, Corp. Code sections 25401, 25540(b), after defendant persuaded an acquaintance to invest in a real estate development opportunity in Idaho in return for a promissory note, the terms of which were amended and extended several times but never realized, the trial court's order is affirmed where the promissory notes offered for the investment in the real estate development scheme were not securities within the meaning of the Corporate Securities Law.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence for robbery in the first degree is reversed where defendant's prior conviction for attempt to commit robbery in Washington, D.C. is not the equivalent of a felony in New York and cannot serve as a proper basis for a second felony offender adjudication.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for assault in the second degree is affirmed and the court held that when a new rule is announced during the one-year grace period for filing a notice of appeal, a judgment becomes final 30 days after sentencing where a defendant does not file a timely direct appeal and does not move for leave to file a late notice of appeal under CPL 460.30 (1).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for attempted robbery and two counts of assault is affirmed where the People met their burden to rebut a presumption of an unduly suggestive array after failing to preserve the computer-generated array of photographs that led to defendant's identification. The court expressly extended the presumption of suggestiveness to the People's failure to preserve a record of computer-generated photo arrays.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest is affirmed where the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relieving defendant’s attorney and appointing new counsel. Attorney’s employer, New York County Defender Services, represented the key government witness in a separate case arising from the same occurrence and refused to permit defendant’s attorney to search for and potentially call him as a witness.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child are affirmed where defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by: 1) not calling an expert witness to testify that the absence of physical evidence on the victim three years after the last alleged incident could indicate the victim was never anally raped by defendant; and 2) failing to object to testimony of various prosecution witnesses recalling the victim’s statements that she was being sexually abused.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly considered the drug factory presumption of Penal Law section 220.25(2); and 2) the decision regarding whether a defendant testifies before the grand jury is a strategic one requiring the expert judgment of counsel, and defense counsel’s refusal to facilitate defendant’s appearance before the grand jury did not amount to per se ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for sexual conduct against a child in the first degree is affirmed where the trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting rebuttal testimony intended prove defendant’s sole witness was biased and motivated to fabricate evidence. The Court clarified that the Appellate Division may rely on the record to discern an unarticulated predicate for the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence following conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is affirmed where the sentencing court properly refused defendant’s request to defer payment of a mandatory surcharge imposed under Penal Law section 60.35 that was not subject to the court’s discretion.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence for robbery in the first degree based on a prior conviction for assault in the first degree is vacated and remanded for resentencing. The Court held that the revocation of probation under Penal Code section 60.01 is not the analogue of an annulment of a sentence and concluded that the original sentencing date controls for the purpose of determining the eligible look-back period in Penal Law section 70.04 for prior conviction sentencing.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees is vacated and the case remanded where the police’s seizure of defendant’s clothing from a clear hospital bag without a warrant or defendant’s consent violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for felony murder and rape is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the defendant from introducing evidence of third-party culpability and such error was not harmless under the circumstances.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for gang assault and weapons possession is reversed where the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's redacted statement to police violated defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and such error was not harmless.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for robbery in the second degree is reversed where the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's out-of-court statements to establish an element of the crime violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for murder in the second degree and related offenses are affirmed where the trial court: 1) properly permitted the People to call a government witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before receiving immunity; 2) properly permitted the government to use a redacted statement for the limited purpose of impeaching its own witness; and 3) did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant's expert from testifying with regard to the effects of event stress on eyewitness identification.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for murder in the second degree and related offenses are affirmed where the trial court: 1) properly permitted the People to call a government witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before receiving immunity; 2) properly permitted the government to use a redacted statement for the limited purpose of impeaching its own witness; and 3) did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant's expert from testifying with regard to the effects of event stress on eyewitness identification.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree burglary and assault is affirmed where: 1) defendant's right to a trial by jury was not impaired by the trial court's failure to adhere to the statutory procedural protection for excusing potential jurors for hardship; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding defendant's third-party culpability evidence as not probative and speculative; and 3) the prosecutor's reference to defendant's gender in summation was inexcusable and irrelevant, but defense counsel's failure to object was not ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree intentional murder is affirmed where defendant's attorney did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to move to reopen the suppression hearing following a detective's trial testimony about his interview with defendant.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for multiple counts of robbery and larceny is affirmed where the People's use of defendant's non-privileged telephone conversations, made while in custody at Rikers Island, did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the dissemination of recordings of conversations at the District Attorney's request does not violate state law.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance is affirmed where defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to object to the legality of his guilty plea and didn't do so, thus failing to preserve his claim challenging the validity of his plea.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for assaults and related offenses is affirmed where a parent or guardian can vicariously consent on behalf of a child to create an audio or video recording of a conversation to which the child is a party, pursuant to Penal Code section 250.00 (2), provided that the parent or guardian has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis to believe that it is necessary in order to serve the best interests of his or her minor child.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes is affirmed. The Court held that New York's standard for admitting evidence of third-party culpability, articulated in People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351 (2001), is consistent with Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) and does not infringe on a defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree murder and fist degree assault is affirmed where the trial court did not err in refusing to remove three spectators, silently wearing t-shirts bearing a photograph of one of the victims, from the courtroom during summation at defense counsel's request.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In consolidated criminal actions concerning the People's change of their readiness status after having previously filed off-calendar statements of readiness, the Court held that there is a rebuttable presumption that such statements were truthful when made and that defendants can rebut the presumption with a demonstration that the People were not, in fact, ready at the time the statement was filed.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for multiple robberies is reversed and remanded. The Court held that a lineup's suggestiveness should not turn solely on whether a defendant's distinctive feature, here dreadlocks, figured prominently in a witness's prior description to police but can be considered as one factor when a court determines the suggestiveness of a lineup.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for manslaughter and possession of a weapon is affirmed where the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury to continue deliberating, following the jury's return of a verdict which polling determined not to be unanimous, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree murder is affirmed where defendant's trial counsel did not commit ineffective assistance of counsel in pursuing a misidentification defense while not advancing an inconsistent justification defense, after defendant decided on the strategy and denied that he was the person depicted shooting the victim on a surveillance video recording.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree burglary and robbery is affirmed where the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence subscriber information in prepaid cell phone records as nonhearsay evidence within a business record, because the information was not introduced for the truth of the matters asserted.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for coercion in the first-degree relating to defendant's harassment of his ex-girlfriend, both while still living at her apartment and from jail, is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve his argument that the court committed Apprendi error; and 2) defendant's sought jury instruction for second-degree coercion as a lesser-included offense was not warranted.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for manslaughter is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors about their views on involuntary confessions.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve his argument that the trial court erred by re-imposing the original sentence after reversal on appeal; and 2) defense counsel's failure to challenge the resentencing was not ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree robbery is reversed and a new trial ordered where: 1) skin color is a cognizable classification upon which a challenge to a prosecutor's peremptory strikes can be made under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and 2) defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination and the prosecutor failed to give a non-discriminatory reason for the juror exclusion at issue.

(Supreme Court of California) - At issue is whether police officers could enter a private residence without a warrant under a community care taking exception, as articulated in People v Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464. The Court concluded any entry that falls short of a perceived emergency or other exigent circumstances does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment and that People v. Ray is disapproved.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. The appeals court found that the trial court erred in partially granting a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a warrantless search.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant appealed from multiple convictions for robbery. He challenged the trial court’s admission of police interrogation statements, text exchange with his mother, and books and documents found in his car. The appeals court found that the police interrogation was properly admitted, but the text messages and the books and documents were not. This error by the trial court was prejudicial and therefore required reversal and remand.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with completed kidnapping but was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Defendant argued that a conviction for a crime he was not charged with violates the Sixth Amendment. The court held that a criminal defendant can be convicted of an attempted crime despite being charged with a completed crime because being charged with a completed crime is sufficient notice that he could be charged with an attempted crime.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated in part. Defendant was convicted of multiple lewd acts upon a child. Defendant argued that the evidence did not support part of the conviction and his sentence is unconstitutional. The appeals court agreed that the evidence supported only two lewd acts on each victim and that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remand for new trial. Defendant is a sexually violent predator who is currently receiving treatment at a state mental hospital. He challenged the court order denying his petition to be placed in a conditional release program on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial. The appeals court agreed stating that the prosecutor interfered with Defendant’s right to testify and the trial court erroneously refused to admit his release plan into evidence. The appeals court held that a fair trial is a fundamental right.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit involving the raisin industry and the California Marketing Act of 1937 (CMA), Food & Agr. Code section 58601 et seq., the trial court's interpretation of the CMA's requirement, that the Secretary of California's Department of Food and Agriculture, in adopting a marketing order for industry advertising or research, must find that the order will tend to effectuate the declared purposes and policies of the CMA, is reversed where it erroneously limits the CMA's applicability only to Great Depression-like economic circumstances.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal of denial of Proposition 47 petition for resentencing of felony convictions for theft from an elder and receiving stolen property, Pen. Code sections 368(d), 496(a), the denial of the petition is reversed and remanded solely as to counts 12, 14, and 15, where: 1) the court did not state its reasoning for concluding the crimes alleged in those counts were not eligible for resentencing; and 2) the record does not support the trial court's ineligibility finding.