People v. Panozo
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this California state case, the Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge failed to consider Panozo’s PTSD and substance use—linked to military service—as required by law. The sentence was reversed and remanded for resentencing.

2021 | State Juristiction

People v. Panozo

Keywords California Court of Appeal; sentencing; PTSD; substance use; military service; resentencing; legal case; Panozo; reversed; remanded
Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

The California Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a sentence due to the sentencing judge's failure to adequately consider mitigating factors. Specifically, the court found that the judge did not properly account for the defendant's PTSD and substance use, both demonstrably linked to military service, as mandated by applicable law.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

The California Court of Appeal reversed Panozo's sentence due to the sentencing judge's failure to adequately consider mitigating factors. Specifically, the court found the judge did not properly account for Panozo's PTSD and substance use, both demonstrably linked to military service, as mandated by law. The case was remanded for resentencing.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A California appeals court overturned Panozo's sentence. The court found the judge didn't properly consider Panozo's PTSD and substance use issues, both stemming from military service, as the law requires. The case will be resentenced.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A California court decided that a judge didn't follow the rules when sentencing someone named Panozo. The judge didn't think enough about Panozo's problems from being in the military, like PTSD and substance use. Because of this mistake, the court sent the case back to be sentenced again.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

59 Cal.App.5th 825 (2021)

Highlights