Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Robert Wayne Cunningham, was convicted of provocative act murder and other offenses related to a 1995 shootout with the police. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with consecutive determinate sentences. The incident occurred when Cunningham and his accomplice, Soley, were under police surveillance due to suspicion of committing a series of armed robberies. The police followed them to a liquor store, where they committed a robbery. The police blocked their car, leading to a shootout initiated by Cunningham, which resulted in Soley's death and injuries to Cunningham and at least one police officer.Cunningham sought sentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 but was unsuccessful. He appealed, arguing that provocative murder is based on the imputation of malice, which he claimed is now barred by the newly enacted Penal Code section 188, subdivision (a)(3). He also contended that the prosecutor's argument that he started the gun battle was equivalent to arguing the now discarded "natural and probable consequences" doctrine.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District disagreed with Cunningham's arguments. The court noted that provocative act murder has been a part of California law since the 1960s and that the legislature's failure to mention it in the new statute indicates it did not intend to discard this theory. The court also stated that the prosecutor's argument did not preclude the statute and that the jury's verdict was informed by the instructions given. The court cited a recent case, People v. Antonelli, where it held that the provocative murder doctrine survived recent legislative enactments. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, denying Cunningham's sentencing relief. View "People v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a bail bond forfeiture involving Florian Basica, who was charged with second-degree robbery. The North River Insurance Company (the surety) and Bad Boys Bail Bonds (the bail agent) posted a $60,000 bond for Basica's release. However, Basica failed to appear for his preliminary hearing, leading to the forfeiture of the bond. The bail agent sought an extension of the exoneration period, which was granted twice by the trial court. The appellants later filed a motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bail bond, arguing that the trial court did not declare the forfeiture in a timely manner.The trial court denied the appellants' motion and entered summary judgment against the surety. The appellants argued that the entry of summary judgment was premature and an act in excess of jurisdiction, citing dicta from People v. Granite State Insurance Co. They contended that the court's power to enter summary judgment begins on the day following the denial of the motion.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District disagreed with the appellants' argument. It found that the trial court had the authority to enter summary judgment when the bond is forfeited and the period specified in section 1305 has elapsed without the forfeiture being set aside. In this case, the bond had been forfeited, and the exoneration period had elapsed without the forfeiture being set aside by the time the trial court entered summary judgment. Therefore, the court acted within its jurisdiction in entering summary judgment. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "P. v. Basica" on Justia Law

The defendant, Noe Lezama, was initially charged with murder but later entered a plea to voluntary manslaughter in 2019. In 2022, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that the timing and factual basis of his plea should not preclude him from being eligible for resentencing. The trial court summarily denied his petition, concluding that legislative history confirmed that those who pled guilty to manslaughter after statutory amendments eliminated imputed malice theories of murder liability are not eligible for resentencing as a matter of law.Previously, the trial court had sentenced Lezama to a total of 13 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter and a gang enhancement. The prosecution had initially charged Lezama and another individual with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, alleging that they had killed a man with malice aforethought. However, in 2019, the prosecution and Lezama reached a plea agreement, and the original information was amended to add a count of voluntary manslaughter and modify a criminal street gang enhancement.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that the statutory language and defendant’s record of conviction confirmed that Lezama was not eligible for resentencing. The court noted that Senate Bill 1437, which took effect in 2019, amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. However, the court concluded that this did not apply to Lezama, who pled guilty to manslaughter after such theories had been eliminated by Senate Bill 1437. View "P. v. Lezama" on Justia Law

Nicholas Beaudreaux, serving a 50-year-to-life sentence for the first-degree murder and attempted robbery of Wayne Drummond, twice petitioned unsuccessfully for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. In the resentencing proceedings on his second petition, the trial court ruled that the order denying relief on his first petition, an order affirmed in 2020, foreclosed relief. Beaudreaux appealed again, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lewis and Senate Bill No. 775, which clarified the procedural law governing section 1172.6 resentencing proceedings.Previously, Beaudreaux and a co-defendant, Brandon Crowder, were charged with the same two counts: murdering Drummond and attempting to rob Drummond. However, only Beaudreaux was charged with personally and intentionally discharging a firearm, causing great bodily injury and death to Drummond. A jury trial followed, and Crowder changed his plea from not guilty to no contest to the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The jury found Beaudreaux guilty of first-degree murder and attempted robbery of Drummond, and found the sentencing enhancement allegations against him to be true.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District, the court agreed with Beaudreaux that the trial court erred at the prima facie stage of these resentencing proceedings by once again failing to appoint counsel, and by relying on substantive facts summarized in this court’s 2011 opinion affirming his conviction. However, the court concluded that these errors were harmless. The dispositive question was whether, based on the record of conviction, Beaudreaux was convicted as Drummond’s actual killer. The court concluded that the record was sufficient to refute conclusively Beaudreaux’s attempt to allege entitlement to section 1172.6 relief. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "P. v. Beaudreaux" on Justia Law

In 2016, Shawn Vincent Gray was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) for one count of stalking and two counts of making criminal threats. He also admitted to a prior strike allegation and six one-year prior prison commitment allegations. As part of his plea agreement, Gray acknowledged that an NGI verdict would mean that he would be committed to the Department of Mental Health for a maximum term of 19 years and four months. In 2023, Gray filed a petition to recall his maximum commitment time and strike the legally invalid enhancement, citing Senate Bill No. 483 (SB 483) and Penal Code section 1172.75. The Kern County Superior Court granted the petition, recalculating Gray's maximum commitment term to 13 years and four months.The People appealed the superior court's decision, arguing that the court erred by recalculating Gray's maximum term of commitment. They claimed that the legislative changes that eliminated most section 667.5(b) sentencing enhancements did not retroactively apply to Gray's 2016 maximum term of commitment and that because Gray continued to be a threat to public safety, any reduced commitment recalculation was erroneous.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District found that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and consider Gray's petition in the first instance and its subsequent orders were void. The court concluded that the People's appeal was statutorily authorized and that it had appellate jurisdiction. However, it also found that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and consider Gray's petition in the first instance and its subsequent orders were void. The court reversed and vacated the superior court's orders recalling the 2016 judgment and recalculating Gray's maximum term of commitment. The court ordered the superior court to instead enter a new and different order denying Gray's petition in its entirety. View "P. v. Gray" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Israel Marcial Uriostegui, who was convicted of first-degree residential burglary by a jury. Uriostegui appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his objection under section 231.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section aims to prevent the improper removal of jurors based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, gender, or membership in another protected group. Uriostegui's objection was based on the prosecutor's peremptory challenge against a prospective juror, T.N., who appeared to be Hispanic.Previously, the trial court had asked T.N. for basic information during voir dire. T.N. disclosed her employment at Taco Bell, her current unemployment due to an injury, and her lack of prior jury service. She also revealed that two of her family members had been convicted of a crime, but she was not close to them. When the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against T.N., Uriostegui's counsel objected, arguing that the basis for excusing T.N. was presumptively invalid under section 231.7. The prosecutor justified the challenge by citing T.N.'s "lack of life experience," her unemployment, and her demeanor. The trial court denied Uriostegui's objection, finding no substantial likelihood that T.N.'s perceived membership in a protected class was a factor in the peremptory challenge.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District, Uriostegui contended that the trial court erred in denying his objection under section 231.7. The court agreed with Uriostegui, stating that the prosecutor's reasons for excusing T.N. were presumptively invalid under section 231.7. The court found that the prosecutor's reasons and the trial court's findings did not overcome the presumption of invalidity. The court concluded that the trial court erred in denying Uriostegui's objection under section 231.7. As a result, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. View "People v. Uriostegui" on Justia Law

The case involves Jameal M. Mosley, who was charged with unauthorized possession and transportation of a machine gun, being a felon in possession of a firearm for the benefit of a street gang, and being a felon in possession of ammunition. These charges stemmed from warrantless searches of Mosley's car and person, which yielded a loaded magazine and a Glock handgun with an automatic switch. Mosley filed a motion to suppress the magazine and handgun, arguing that the searches were unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion.The trial court held a suppression hearing. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department had received a call about a group of men creating a music video in a parking lot, with one of them holding a handgun. The officers arrived at the scene and detained all members of the group, including Mosley. They found a firearm on one of the men, D.M., and another firearm in D.M.'s car. Mosley was detained for approximately 41 minutes before his car was searched, revealing a loaded magazine. A subsequent search of Mosley's person revealed a Glock handgun with a switch. The trial court denied Mosley's motion to suppress, finding that the officers had probable cause to search Mosley's car and that the detention was not prolonged.Mosley filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District. The appellate court agreed with Mosley's argument that the trial court erred in finding the warrantless searches were supported by probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the officers lacked probable cause to search Mosley's car and that the detention was unlawfully prolonged. The court granted Mosley's petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying Mosley's motion to suppress and enter a new order granting the motion. View "Mosley v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves Francisco Carrillo, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, who was convicted of assault with a firearm in 2002 and sentenced to 301 days in jail. In 2007, Carrillo admitted to a probation violation and was sentenced to an additional 90 days in jail. The combined jail time exceeded one year, making his conviction an aggravated felony under immigration law and subjecting him to mandatory deportation.In 2022, Carrillo filed a motion to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7, arguing that he did not meaningfully understand the potential immigration consequences of his conviction and sentence. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Carrillo had not demonstrated that his lack of understanding prejudiced his decision to go to trial or his defense strategy.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that Carrillo had not shown a reasonable probability that he would have done something differently, such as pursuing an immigration-safe plea or presenting different arguments at sentencing, had he understood the immigration consequences. However, the court modified the trial court's order to allow Carrillo to file a new motion addressing grounds not raised in his original motion. View "People v. Carrillo" on Justia Law

The defendant, Rafael B.D.R., was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison for committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 and sending or exhibiting harmful matter to a minor. The victim was his 11-year-old niece, Jane Doe. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that Jane's mother, Janeth, and the defendant's ex-wife, Elizabeth, had conspired to have Jane falsely accuse him of abuse.The trial court had excluded testimony from two defense witnesses who would have testified that Janeth had asked them to lie about the defendant. The court found no clear nexus between these conversations and Jane's credibility. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Jane and her older sister, Melissa. The jury found the defendant guilty of both charges.Before sentencing, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Elizabeth had sent an unsolicited email to the defense counsel, disclosing that she and Janeth had devised a plan to falsely accuse the defendant of abuse to get him deported. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the new evidence was not credible and would not likely lead to a different outcome at trial.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the new trial motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing to assess the new evidence. The court concluded that Elizabeth's declaration did constitute new evidence and that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate its credibility and force. View "People v. Rafael B.D.R." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Hildo Ocampo Estrada, who was convicted of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter. The charges stemmed from an incident where Estrada and others were involved in a fight with another group, which resulted in the death of Martin Corio and the severe injury of Carlos Zuniga Flores. Estrada was charged with murder and attempted murder, but he pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder, admitting to the use of a deadly weapon and causing great bodily injury. He was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of 15 years and 4 months.Estrada later filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.61, arguing that the record of conviction did not establish that he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The prosecution opposed the petition, asserting that Estrada was ineligible for relief because he was the actual killer. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied his petition at the prima facie stage, concluding that Estrada was the actual killer. Estrada appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight reviewed the case. The court found that the record of conviction did not conclusively establish that Estrada was the actual killer or that he acted with intent to kill or actual malice. The court concluded that the lower court erred in denying Estrada's petition at the prima facie stage without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to issue an order to show cause under section 1172.6, subdivision (c), and to hold an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(1). View "People v. Estrada" on Justia Law