Court Filings
3 filings indexedRecent court opinions cross-linked with public notices by case number, summarized and classified by AI.
People v. Mohammed
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to increase defendant Sami Wayne Mohammed’s sentence after execution of his original sentence had begun. Mohammed initially received an aggregate seven-year, four-month term on January 12, 2024. The CDCR later notified the trial court that parts of that sentence were unauthorized under the Three Strikes law, and the trial court resentenced Mohammed on October 21, 2024 to an aggregate 10 years, eight months. The appellate court concluded the trial court could not lawfully resentence him after jurisdiction had ended, treated the appeal as a habeas petition, granted relief, and ordered reinstatement of the January 12, 2024 sentence.
Criminal AppealGrantedCalifornia Court of AppealH052908Bobo v. Appellate Division of Super. Ct.
The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate directing the appellate division to reverse its summary denial and order the superior court to reconsider petitioner Aimee Bobo’s request for misdemeanor diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95. Bobo had been charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter after running a red light and killing another driver. The trial court denied diversion solely because her negligent conduct caused a death. The appellate court held that denial based only on facts inherent in the offense improperly ignored the statute’s rehabilitative purposes and thus was an abuse of discretion.
Criminal AppealGrantedCalifornia Court of AppealD087393People v. Super. Ct. 4//16/26 CA4/2
The Court of Appeal granted the People’s petition for a writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to vacate its August 12, 2025 denial of an amended statement of disqualification (ASD) and to disqualify Judge Samah Shouka. The People sought disqualification because Judge Shouka had been a Riverside County deputy district attorney in the homicide unit and had participated in staffing and charging decisions relevant to a pending Racial Justice Act evidentiary hearing about whether the district attorney’s office disproportionately files death-penalty or special-circumstance charges. The appellate court concluded that a person aware of those facts might reasonably doubt the judge’s ability to be impartial, requiring disqualification under CCP §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).
Criminal AppealGrantedCalifornia Court of AppealE086779