Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to one count of residential burglary, two counts of check forgery, two counts of commercial burglary, and one count of theft of access card information. At issue is the question of which value is relevant in determining whether the burglary of a pawn shop achieved through pawning stolen goods is reducible to misdemeanor shoplifting under Proposition 47: the value of the stolen goods pawned, or the value of the property obtained in exchange. The trial court concluded that the value of the stolen goods pawned was the key consideration and denied defendant's application to designate her burglary conviction as a misdemeanor on that basis. The court disagreed with the trial court's analysis and concluded that, in a commercial burglary involving the successful pawning of stolen goods, the relevant value for Proposition 47 purposes is that of the property received in exchange for the stolen goods. Nonetheless, the court affirmed the judgment because defendant did not present evidence that she obtained $950 or less from the pawn shop. View "People v. Pak" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in Fresno County Superior Court of assault with a deadly weapon and was subsequently released on parole. Defendant then pled no contest, pursuant to a plea agreement, to running a chop shop operation and admitted a prior strike conviction and having served a prior prison term. The agreement provided for a stipulated term of five years to run concurrently with the parole revocation case. In exchange, count two and additional prison prior allegations in the new case, and another case in which charges were pending, would be dismissed. The trial court found defendant in violation, and ordered that defendant’s parole remain revoked. The People appealed the revocation of parole. The court concluded that the People's appeal is authorized by Penal Code section 1238, subdivision (a)(5). The court further concluded that the trial court erred by purporting to terminate parole because it lacked the authority to do so under Penal Code section 1385. Accordingly, the court vacated the order terminating defendant's parole and remanded. View "People v. VonWahlde" on Justia Law

Defendant Steven Nachbar pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger. The court placed him on formal probation and required him to register as a sex offender. Defendant appealed, challenging four of the conditions to his probation: that he (1) not have photographic equipment; (2) not have toys, video games, or similar items that attract children; (3) obtain approval of his residence from his probation officer; and (4) submit to warrantless and suspicionless searches of his computers and recordable media. Furthermore, defendant contended the trial court erred by requiring him to register as a sex offender "for life" because he may someday obtain a certificate of rehabilitation that relieved him of the duty to continue registering. After review of the case, the Court of Appeals concluded defendant forfeited his challenges to the conditions regarding toys and residence approval because he did not object to them in the trial court. His challenges to the remaining probation conditions and registration all lacked merit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "California v. Nachbar" on Justia Law

Forney entered a no contest plea to unlawful oral copulation (Pen. Code 288a(b)(2)) and unlawful sexual intercourse (261.5(d)). In accordance with the terms of a negotiated disposition, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation. He challenged three conditions of his probation. The court of appeal struck the sex offender management program Fifth Amendment waiver (statutorily required under section 1203.067(b)(3)), noting that the condition is currently on review by the California Supreme Court. Binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent holds that a probationer cannot be compelled to relinquish his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and, the court of appeal stated, also makes clear the choice between agreeing to the mandatory Fifth Amendment waiver as a condition of probation or facing immediate incarceration is an impermissibly coercive one. The polygraph requirement, without the compelled Fifth Amendment waiver, is valid. The court also called for modification of conditions relating to contact with minors, residency, and location, noting that the Attorney General largely agreed they should be modified. View "People v. Forney" on Justia Law

On four occasions in October-December 2012, Stamps was pulled over by the Pittsburg police because her car did not display a license plate. Each time, she and her car were searched, and on each occasion drugs were discovered. Stamps was convicted of multiple drug possession offenses. The court of appeal reversed in part, finding that the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of an expert criminalist who identified the drugs in pill form as controlled substances (oxycodone and dihydrocodeineone) solely by comparing their appearance to pills pictured on a Web site called “Ident-A-Drug.” The expert’s testimony was based on unreliable and inadmissible hearsay from the Web site and did not involve the use of the witness’s expertise. The court noted that a retrial on those counts is not barred by double jeopardy principles. View "People v. Stamps" on Justia Law

Minor admitted a violation of grand theft from the person of another, with a stipulated restitution of $20. Minor was ordered to the Correctional Academy for 12 months, consisting of six months of confinement and six months of aftercare under the supervision of probation. It was ordered that Minor could be returned to the Correctional Academy for a one-time remediation of 30 days at any time during the aftercare component due to a violation of probation or program rules. In the published portion of the opinion, the court held that the 30-day remediation violated the statutory protections afforded in the Welfare and Institutions Code as it permitted the probation officer to determine a violation of probation without notice to Minor and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that it was impermissible for the juvenile court to impose a $50 “Facilities Assessment” pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a). The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "In re Gabriel T." on Justia Law

The minor stabbed another young man in the abdomen during a brawl, using a folding pocket knife. The resulting injury required a five-day hospital stay. The minor was charged under Penal Code section 245(a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, and subdivision (a)(4), assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury. The juvenile court found true both violations, and enhancement allegations for personal use of a deadly weapon and infliction of great bodily injury. The minor was committed to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program for a maximum of nine years or until age 21. The court of appeal held that the minor cannot be found to have violated both section because the offense specified in subdivision (a)(4), assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, is necessarily included within the offense specified in subdivision (a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm. The court struck the deadly weapon use enhancement as an element of subdivision (a)(1) and directed the entry of a narrower electronic search condition and remanded for recalculation of the minor’s maximum term of confinement and restitution fine. View "In re Jonathan R." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of multiple acts, including robbery, rape, and assault with a firearm that occurred when he was 14 years old. On appeal, he contends that his parole eligibility date at age 55 violates the equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment provisions of the state and federal Constitutions. Defendant broke into the victim’s home in order to commit rape, raped and robbed her at gunpoint in front of her eight-year-old son, and tried to kidnap her in order to facilitate his crimes. The court concluded that defendant's parole eligibility date does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment where defendant committed multiple violent crimes of a horrific and devastating nature. The court also concluded that excluding one strike offenders from Penal Code section 3051 was not an equal protection violation. In this case, because the purported statutory disparity does not implicate a suspect class or fundamental right, the court applied the deferential rational basis test when examining the Legislature’s sentencing choice. The court concluded that the threat of recidivism gives rise to a rational basis for the Legislature’s decision to exclude One Strike offenders from section 3051. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Bell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for resentencing/application to redesignate his felony conviction for second degree burglary as misdemeanor shoplifting pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Penal Code 1170.18, subds. (a)–(e), (f)–(i), 459.5. In this case, the trial court reasoned that because defendant entered a store through the back entrance and committed the theft in an “employee area” of the store, the offense did not meet the definition of “shoplifting” under section 459.5, and his felony conviction thus did not qualify for resentencing or redesignation as a misdemeanor under section 1170.18, subdivisions (a)–(e) or (f)–(i). The court concluded, however, that entry during business hours into a commercial establishment’s employee rest room to commit larceny qualifies as “shoplifting” under section 459.5. The court agreed with defendant that his crime satisfied the elements of shoplifting under section 459.5 and the factors cited by the trial court did not disqualify him from relief under section 1170.18, subdivisions (b) or (i). Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's denial of relief. View "People v. Hallam" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of assault with force likely to produce great bodily harm, he was sentenced to two years plus 25 years to life in prison. The jury found that defendant had two prior strike convictions and served two prior prison terms. The court concluded that the record of conviction reflects defendant committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; the facts show defendant personally and intentionally used a vehicle in the commission of that assault; when a vehicle is used as a means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, it is a deadly weapon; and thus defendant was “armed with a . . . deadly weapon” within the meaning of Penal Code 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii). Accordingly, defendant is ineligible for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 1170.126, subdivision (e)(2). Therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s petition. View "People v. Perez" on Justia Law