Court of Appeal Reversed a Criminal Conviction in One of My Recent Cases

This post is not related to any immigration matter, but I do a fair amount of criminal appellate work as a panel attorney in the First, Second, and Sixth District. I accept court appointment for indigent clients in their direct appeal. I recently received a favorable decision in one of my cases, People v. Foster a case out of Alameda County where a young black male was convicted of attempted robbery of a local convenience store.

The decision was actually written up in the San Francisco Chronicle. Here is the link.

The decision was split, 2 to 1, and was based upon the denial by the trial court of a defense motion for a short continuance in order to try and locate a previously subpoenaed defense witness. Here is the link to the full decision at the court of appeal.

Victory in my Latest Criminal Appeal

The First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, recently issued an opinion in a criminal appeal of a conviction for California Vehicle Code section 10851(a) - Unlawful Driving of a Vehicle. The case name was People v. Martinez and the jury trial took place in Contra Costa County. I was appointed to represent the appellant in the case.

On appeal, I raise one issue, that the trial judge inserted an variant jury instruction that confused the jury and impermissibly lessened the burden of proof for the prosecution. After oral arguments, the court of appeal agreed with my argument and reversed the verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court.

The opinion is presently unpublished, however, I requested that the court consider publishing the opinion to discourage other District Attorneys from seeking to insert variant language into the standard CALCRIM instructions.

The opinion can be seen here.