San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

People v. Savoy (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 3, Oct. 30, 2026, No. A175134), certified for publication.

Section 1385 Does Not Permit a Lesser Showing of Racial Disparity

The Court of Appeal affirmed a resentencing judgment retaining a 25-year-to-life firearm enhancement. It held that a defendant seeking dismissal based on discriminatory racial impact under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(A), must satisfy the sentencing-disparity requirements incorporated from the Racial Justice Act (RJA), section 745, subdivision (a)(4). A lesser showing does not suffice.

People v. Ball (Cal., Oct. 26, 2026, No. S292969) 2026 WL 3202943, at *1–4.

A Reasonable Person’s Fear Is Enough

The California Supreme Court held that felony firearm brandishing under Penal Code section 417.3 does not require proof that the targeted motorist actually felt apprehension or fear. The question is objective: Would the threatening display cause a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances to fear bodily harm? If so, the fear requirement is satisfied. The particular victim’s emotional reaction is not an additional element. The court therefore affirmed the judgment reinstating the felony charge against Ball. It did not decide his guilt.

People v. Thomas, No. B348094 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 8, Oct. 22, 2026) (certified for publication).

An Inventory Label Cannot Substitute for a Genuine Caretaking Need

The Court of Appeal held that police could not justify a warrantless vehicle search as an inventory search when the prosecution established no community caretaking reason for impoundment and the evidence instead showed an investigatory purpose. Officers searched Anthony Thomas’s legally parked rental car, discovered a pistol, and charged him with a firearms offense. Because neither the inventory exception nor another identified exception justified the search, the court reversed the denial of suppression and directed the trial court to suppress the gun.

People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2026, No. B353018) 2026 WL 305914

Summary: The Court of Appeal held that a criminal master calendar judge who goes beyond trial assignment by offering an indicated sentence, considering whether to strike prior strike convictions, and accepting a guilty plea is no longer acting merely in a master calendar capacity. Because those actions involve contested issues of law or fact, the trial court was required to accept the People’s timely and proper peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The appellate court therefore issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to vacate both the order denying the section 170.6 motion and the order accepting the defendant’s plea, and to assign the case to a different judge.

Parties and Charges

People v. The North River Insurance Company (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 9, 2026, No. F090562) 2026 WL 3034166

Issue: Whether Section 1306 Requires a Separate Civil Case

The appeal presented a narrow statutory-interpretation question: whether Penal Code section 1306 implicitly requires a court to enter summary judgment on a forfeited bail bond in a newly opened civil case, rather than in the criminal case where the bond was posted. The surety argued that judgment entered in the criminal case exceeded the trial court’s jurisdiction and required exoneration of the bond.

The People v. Joseph Toussaint III (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2026, No. A171743) 2026 WL 2932739

Holding: Only the Authorized Prosecutors Could Decide Whether the People Would Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Although the Alameda County Superior Court’s resentencing order was appealable by the People, the Kern County District Attorney lacked authority to invoke that right on the People’s behalf. The prosecutors with authority to decide whether the People would appeal were the Alameda County District Attorney, who participated in the resentencing proceeding, and the Attorney General, who has constitutional supervisory authority over district attorneys. Neither chose to appeal. The Kern County District Attorney could not override that decision merely because the resentencing order affected a conviction originally obtained in Kern County.

People v. Cortez (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 24, 2026, No. B348276) 2026 WL 2873876.

Summary: The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Carlos Cortez’s petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), holding that the statute applies only to juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), not to a juvenile sentence of 46 years eight months to life that includes youthful offender parole eligibility.

Convictions and Sentence Set the Context

People v. Putallez (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2026, No. A174094) 2026 WL 2674363, at *1–3

Defendant Joseph Kent Putallez pleaded no contest to theft of an elder or dependent adult by a caregiver. Under the plea agreement, the trial court placed him on formal probation for two years. On appeal, he challenges one probation condition, arguing that it gives too much judicial authority to the probation officer. We conclude the court set the condition’s basic policy and left only practical details to probation. We therefore affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY