P. v. Churchill CA1/4
The COVID-19 pandemic has required the modification of court operations throughout the United States and within California and has challenged the previously common understanding of what constitutes a “personal” appearance. Defendant David Harlow Churchill appeals the revocation of his probation and the execution of a previously suspended four year prison sentence on the grounds that the trial court violated his due process rights when it permitted only his remote appearance via videoconference at his contested probation violation hearing and subsequent sentencing hearing. Churchill further asserts that because there was no opportunity for him to confidentially consult with his attorney at these proceedings, he was denied his right to counsel. Churchill argues that these constitutional violations, plus the lack of substantial evidence presented, warrant reversal of the probation violation findings and vacation of the sentence.
Comments on P. v. Churchill CA1/4