California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gutierrez-Salazar, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 178, 38 Cal.App.5th 411 (Cal. App. 2019):
People v. Cawkwell (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1048, 10531054, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 744 [remand not appropriate despite change in law governing pretrial mental health diversion because record established defendant was not eligible for diversion under amended law based on nature of his convictions]; see generally People v. Coelho (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 861, 889, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 729 ["reviewing courts have consistently declined to remand cases where doing so would be an
[251 Cal.Rptr.3d 185]
idle act that exalts form over substance because it is not reasonably probable the court would impose a different sentence"].) Nevertheless, nothing in this opinion should be construed as limiting defendant's right to file a petition in the trial court pursuant to section 1170.95. Any available relief, of course, may be constrained by the doctrine of the law of the case. ( People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543, 897 P.2d 481.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.