So I’m posting a few things here to see how this works. I collect these snippets in a database I use for recording salient points as I read the unpublished opinions, and my exporting process to get them into this blog (by copying and pasting–nothing more magical than that, I’m afraid) obviously needs a little polishing. I’ll keep working on it. I’ve posted the first three cases tonight, Dec 7, 2025. I’m curious to see what happens next time I add to the post.
The format at the moment (and this is to remind me what I’m doing when I come back for the next tweaking, so don’t worry about how I’m stating the obvious) puts the unique identifying number (which allows me to find the actual case) above the paragraph describing the issues and the authorities.
Then the introductory sentence (or two) states generally what relief the court provided. Following that is the actual principle announced by the court (or two or three or … if more than one).
Following the principle you will see the case or statutory or other legal basis supporting the appellate court’s rationale. At the moment, I’m leaving that in the same paragraph with the holding it supports.
I’m trying to edit out bits and pieces that I use in my process of organizing the information, but you may see a stray semicolon. Or twelve. I’m workin’ on it. Before I officially roll this thing out, I’ll probably have to go through another dozen cans of polish before I’m even half-satisfied with my handiwork. You might want to hold off on your tomatoes till then. They’ll either be good for paste or good for ammo, depending on my success or lack of it.
Also, I haven’t gussied up the formatting, particularly on the authorities, so there will be stray quotation marks, parentheses, and brackets that are either incomplete or don’t work at all. Not to worry. I’m focusing on the process at the moment. Graceful presentation will follow. At least that’s my story for now.
(Usual reminder here) By the way, if you’ve forgotten why you’re reading cases on my blog, perhaps it’s a good time to click on the navigation button “WHAT Gold?” above. To return to the blog, click on “Gary has this to say.” And if you are an attorney and want to contact me, click on the “About me” button.
Time Travel
I’ve done a little time travel since the day I posted this first set of summaries. Now I am back to my very first post of summaries. Just like that movie in time travel. You know the one. Assuming there are people who read my blog, some will have started with whatever the most recent post was and worked backwards to this one. Others may scroll and scroll and whatever back to the very first one (THIS one) and read them as chronologically posted. Does that remind anyone else of the philosophy/debate over time travel, that we just travel from one fixed point to another, and there’s no reason we can’t go forward into what we haven’t experienced OR go backward into what we already done, and even go forward and backward, and nothing ever changes? Me neither.
What I’m Serving Today
So here’s what’s in store for those reading my first post ever. And if this really IS the first post you read, here’s some history. When I got to my ninth post, I decided it might be helpful for me to give a little summary of the cases I was going to summarize. Some readers might be in such a hurry they don’t have time to read all the summaries, but if the “menu” suggests an item of interest, perhaps they’ll find time to check just those out. So I have worked backwards from the Ninth Symphony (okay, okay) and added previews in reverse order of the posts. So here’s what we got “today”:
Restitution fines are uncollectible after 10 years;
Mere presence at the scene is not substantial evidence to support conspiracy;
A “wobbler” is an offense that, when committed by an adult, may be prosecuted as or treated for sentencing as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Where a minor is accused of a wobbler offense in juvenile court, the judge must make an express finding on whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor.
So We’re Pre-Flight OFF!
Case: 000001
On resentencing more than 10 years after conviction, the court must strike the unpaid balance of the $10,000 restitution fine, and it must recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served.
First Holding: Restitution fines are uncollectible after 10 years [See] Assembly Bill No. 1186 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.); P.C. 1465.9(d)–“Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.”;
Second Holding: The court must recalculate credit for time served on resentencing [See] People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29, 37
Case: 000002
Mere presence at the scene is not substantial evidence to support conspiracy
Holding: Mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish participation in a conspiracy to commit that crime or aiding and abetting its commission. [See] People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 165 [“Because the law will not recognize a rule of guilt by association, we insist on proof of a defendant’s knowledge of, and specific intent to further, [a conspiracy’s] unlawful ends”; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66, 72; In re Michael T. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 907, 911 [“Mere presence at the scene of a crime which does not itself assist its commission or mere knowledge that a crime is being committed and the failure to prevent it does not amount to aiding and abetting”].
Case: 000003
The defendant contends, and the People concede, the case must be remanded for the juvenile court to declare whether his grand theft offense was a misdemeanor or a felony, as required by section 702. We agree and remand with instructions.
Holding: Juvenile court must declare whether the wobbler grand theft offense was a misdemeanor or a felony [See] In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1204, 1207 ; In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 619; In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176, 191; Absent a court’s express declaration or other evidence the juvenile court “ ‘was aware of, and exercised[,] its discretion to determine the felony or misdemeanor nature of a wobbler,’ ” the matter must be remanded. (In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 712 (F.M; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.790(a)(1); Section 702 error is not harmless unless the record shows that the juvenile court was ‘aware of, and exercised its discretion’ as to each wobbler alleged against the minor.”