Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2009, defendant entered a Clovis store, purchased several items, wrote a check, and provided identification. The cashier, believing the check was valid, allowed defendant to leave with the goods worth $192.26. Defendant later returned and again bought alcohol and snacks, paid with a check, provided identification, and left with $306.38 worth of goods. Both checks were tied to a business payroll account. When the checks cashed, the company’s bookkeeper noticed that they were out of order and that the company name was not on them. Defendant was not authorized to write checks for the company. Defendant was convicted of identity theft, second degree commercial burglary, and check forgery. He had several prior convictions. Defendant received a sentence of six years. In 2014, defendant filed a petition under Proposition 47 (Penal Code 1170.18) to have his second-degree commercial burglary convictions reduced to misdemeanor violations of Penal Code 459.5, and to be resentenced. The court denied defendant’s petition, reasoning that forgery was “not a theft,” so defendant was not eligible for relief under Proposition 47. The court of appeal affirmed. Section 459.5’s use of the term “larceny” does not include all forms of theft. Defendant’s conduct would not have constituted a violation of section 459.5 had it been in effect in 2009. View "People v. Martin" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant-appellant William Johnson of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and hit and run with injury. The jury also found true two enhancement allegations: defendant fled the scene; and the collision resulted in a fatality. The jury did not reach a unanimous verdict on the other charged count, second degree murder, and the trial court granted a mistrial with respect to that count. On retrial with respect to count 1, a new jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder. In this appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred during his retrial by not informing the jury that he had been convicted in the first trial of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and that the error required reversal of his second degree murder conviction. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court’s instructions to the jury for defendant’s retrial were erroneous in several respects, and the second degree murder conviction should have been reversed. View "California v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction by jury of possession and transportation of a controlled substance. Health and Safety Code section 113791 prohibits transportation of a controlled substance. A violation of this section requires proof that the transportation was for sale. The court concluded that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury with an earlier version of section 11379 that did not require proof the transportation was for sale. However, the error was harmless because the jury found defendant possessed the same controlled substance for sale in his car after police stopped him for a traffic violation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a jury verdict adjudicating him a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq., and ordering his indeterminate commitment to Coalinga State Hospital. The court rejected defendant's competency claim, but agreed with many of defendant's evidentiary arguments. The California Supreme Court held in People v. Sanchez that an expert witness cannot in conformity with the Evidence Code “relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception.” In this case, the People's experts did just that by relying on inadmissible hearsay to support extensive testimony about defendant's unrelated convictions and unproven allegations that he committed other acts of sexual violence. The court explained that this inflammatory documentary and testimonial hearsay was prejudicial even under People v. Watson. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "People v. Burroughs" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after he set fire to St. John Vianney Catholic Church and the fire spread to the rectory where priests were sleeping. The court concluded that the trial court erred in failing to recognize it was within its discretion to conduct an inquiry regarding defendant’s mental competency to represent himself and, if necessary, to deny defendant’s Faretta request; the trial court erred in failing to recognize it was within its discretion to inquire whether a second hearing regarding defendant’s mental competency to stand trial should be ordered; and the trial court's errors were prejudicial per se and require reversal without any harmless error analysis. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "People v. Shiga" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Paul Roger Moore of first degree murder based exclusively on circumstantial evidence that he built and planted a victim-activated bomb in an irrigation pump he knew the farm foreman and eventual victim, Roberto Ayala, would activate. On appeal, Moore argued his first cousin Peter had the motive and violent disposition to murder Roberto. ‘[Defendant’s] narrative of family intrigue has all the earmarks of a Shakespearean tragedy and makes for compelling drama.” On the narrow legal questions presented, the Court of Appeal found substantial evidence to support the verdict and no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence or denying the defense request for surrebuttal closing argument, and therefore affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Moore" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant James Allen guilty of escape for leaving his mother’s house, which was his assigned place of confinement under an alternative custody agreement. In challenging his escape conviction, defendant argued there was no substantial evidence that his failure to return to his mother’s house was willful. The Court of Appeals concluded defendant’s contention lacked merit. Accordingly, it affirmed his conviction. View "California v. Allen" on Justia Law

During a trial on multiple counts of sexual offenses against a child, defense counsel informed the court that he had a doubt as to defendant-appellant Earl Lewis Houser, Jr.'s mental competence to stand trial. The trial court appointed a psychologist to assess defendant's mental competence and to advise the court whether there was substantial evidence that defendant was not competent to stand trial. Following a hearing at which the psychologist testified and was cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense, the trial court concluded that defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. The trial resumed and defendant was convicted on all counts. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals concluded after its review of the trial court record here and the California Supreme Court's ruling in "California v. Pennington," (66 Cal.2d 508 (1967)) that the threshold question for appeal was whether the expert's testimony was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's competence and thus triggering his constitutional right to a full competency hearing, not whether defendant was or was not mentally competent. The Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to raise such a doubt. Because a trial court had “no power to proceed with the trial once a doubt arises as to the sanity of the defendant,” the error was prejudicial per se and warranted reversal of the conviction. View "California v. Houser" on Justia Law

Defendant Andrew Garcia was serving 35 years to life after a jury convicted him as an adult of attempted murder and other charges for robbing and shooting a woman in the face when he was 15 years old. In this appeal, defendant argued, the State conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that a three-year enhancement for great bodily harm under Penal Code section 12022.7 was unauthorized and should have been stayed. This reduced his sentence to 32 years to life. Defendant also contended his overall sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the sentencing court did not comply with the requirements in "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012)) and "California v. Caballero," (55 Cal.4th 262 (2012)) that it consider his youth and consequent reduced culpability and impose a sentence reflecting these considerations. The Court of Appeal concluded that while the sentence passed constitutional muster because he “shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing” pursuant to section 3051. View "California v. Garcia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant-appellant Brett Thiel of elder abuse with force likely to cause great bodily harm or death; elder abuse; witness intimidation; and resisting an officer. The jury also found true that defendant, in the commission of count 1, did personally inflict great bodily injury on a person 70 years of age or older. The court sentenced defendant to three years' probation, which included one year in a residential mental health facility. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court improperly instructed the jury concerning the extent to which it could consider evidence of mental incapacity in determining whether he harbored the requisite criminal intent to be convicted of elder abuse in counts 1 and 2. Defendant further argued defense counsel was ineffective by not requesting an instruction that defendant's alleged mental incapacity could negate the requisite intent he contends was required to support such convictions. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Thiel" on Justia Law