Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Ochoa was the middleman in a drug ring supplying methamphetamine for the Nuestra Familia criminal street gang. In 2008, he and his suppliers were charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The defendants included no known members of Nuestra Familia; the complaint charged no gang-related offenses or enhancements. After defendant pleaded no contest to conspiracy and possession charges, the trial court imposed a total sentence of 10 years in prison. One month later, Ochoa and 28 others were indicted for active participation in Nuestra Familia. Ochoa was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine for the benefit of Nuestra Familia. Ochoa unsuccessfully moved to dismiss, citing the bar against multiple prosecutions, Penal Code section 654, and double jeopardy grounds. Ochoa then pleaded no contest to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine for the benefit of a criminal street gang, reserving the right to appeal. The court of appeals reversed, reasoning that the prosecution was aware that the same course of conduct formed a significant part of the offenses charged in the 2008 complaint. The court did not reach the claim of double jeopardy. View "People v. Ochoa" on Justia Law

Appellant Eddie Dunley appealed a judgment extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). He contended that because persons subject to civil commitment after being found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) had a statutory right not to be compelled to testify in proceedings to extend their commitments, so should a person facing commitment as an MDO. The Court of Appeal held that MDO’s, sexually violent predators, and NGI’s are all similarly situated with respect to the testimonial privilege provided for in section 1026.5(b)(7). However, this appeal was moot because a subsequent petition for recommitment was denied by the trial court on or about March 7, 2016, based on the court’s finding that appellant no longer met the criteria for commitment as an MDO. View "California v. Dunley" on Justia Law

An information alleged that in 2014, defendant Charles Brown committed two counts of resisting or attempting by threats and violence to deter an executive officer from performing a lawful duty. It also alleged that defendant had served two prior prison terms, within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). A jury convicted defendant of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor resisting arrest as to count one and returned an arguably ambiguous guilty verdict as to count 2. The prior prison term allegations were found true in a separate bench trial. The court imposed the upper term of three years as to count 2, a consecutive one-year term as to count 1, and a consecutive one-year term for the prior prison term enhancement. This term was to be served in county jail prison consecutive to the term defendant was already serving. Defendant appealed, arguing that the ambiguous jury verdict form mandated reversal of his conviction on count 2, and resentencing solely on his misdemeanor resisting a peace officer conviction. In the alternative, he contended that the full term consecutive sentence imposed for the misdemeanor count was not authorized by law. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed both the felony conviction and the sentence. View "California v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant shot Garcia multiple times in the chest and abdomen at a New Year’s Eve party. A jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder, assault with a firearm and dissuading a witness and found true firearm enhancements as to each offense, but found not true all alleged gang enhancements and an allegation that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The trial court imposed an aggregate term of 37 years to life in prison. The court of appeal remanded for resentencing, The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury it could consider evidence of defendant's mental disabilities with respect to his claim of imperfect self-defense, but the error was harmless. The Attorney General conceded that the court erred in imposing a full consecutive term for the assault conviction rather than one-third the middle term as required by Penal Code section 1170.1. The court rejected claims that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to present a firearms expert as a rebuttal witness and that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for exclusion of his pretrial statement to police on the ground that the police failed to properly advise him of his Miranda rights. View "People v. Ocegueda" on Justia Law

Adrian Montgomery appealed a postjudgment order denying his application to have a felony conviction for cocaine possession redesignated under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f), the portion of Proposition 47 that permitted a person who completed a sentence for a felony conviction to have it changed to a misdemeanor. Montgomery pleaded guilty to the drug charge in 1989; at the same time, he was convicted on a separate charge (in another case) of attempted murder. The trial court denied his application for redesignation of his cocaine conviction under Proposition 47 because the attempted murder conviction was a "prior conviction," rendering Montgomery ineligible for redesigation. Montgomery argued that his attempted murder conviction was a contemporaneous conviction, not a prior one, and therefore was not a disqualifying conviction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court: "prior conviction," as used in the statute was ambiguous, and based on its review of Proposition 47 as it was presented to voters in 2014, the Court concluded California voters did not intend people convicted of violent crimes to benefit from the new law, regardless of when they were convicted of disqualifying crimes. View "California v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of battery with serious injury, and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. In the published portion of the opinion, the court held that CALCRIM No. 3472 (“Right to Self-Defense: May Not Be Contrived”) is a correct statement of law, the instruction was properly given under the facts in this case, and the reasoning of People v. Ramirez has no application where the party claiming a right to self-defense did not use deadly force. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Eulian" on Justia Law

Sinclair was walking in Oakland when a man later identified as Hall began following her, then demanded her purse. When Sinclair did not respond, Hall pushed her into a parked car and said, “Let go of your purse, bitch.” Sinclair felt and saw a knife on her abdomen. Hall said that he would stab her if she didn‘t give up the purse, ripped the purse from her shoulder, and ran away. A police officer found Hall running down the street with Sinclair‘s purse. Hall, who had 10 prior felony convictions, including two serious and violent felonies, pleaded no contest to a lesser included offense, grand theft from a person (Penal Code 487(c)) for an agreed sentence five years in prison. In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, which reduced most possessory drug offenses and thefts of property valued at less than $950 to misdemeanors. Hall filed a petition to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor. The state argued that Hall‘s resentencing would violate the plea bargain and present an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The court of appeal affirmed denial of Hall‘s petition on the ground he presented an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. View "People v. Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his application under Proposition 47, Penal Code 1170.18, to have his 1999 felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance reclassified as a misdemeanor. The court rejected defendant's contention that Proposition 47 only precludes reclassification where a defendant had a “prior” disqualifying conviction, and since his kidnapping to commit robbery conviction occurred after his drug possession conviction, he is eligible for reclassification. The court held that the plain language of the statute suggests a general disqualification regardless of when a defendant was convicted of the disqualifying offense. Furthermore, such an interpretation is the most consistent with the intent of the enactors not to benefit persons convicted of a “super strike” or required to register as a sex offender. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Zamarripa" on Justia Law

Defendant Jerad Potts was convicted by jury of, inter alia, escape from his home detention program. He was sentenced to an eight-month term on the escape conviction as part of an aggregate term of four years eight months, which included a sentence on another case. On appeal, defendant challenged the escape conviction, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that his escape conviction required the willful failure to return to his place of confinement no later than the period he was authorized to be away. The Court of Appeal concluded that any instructional error was harmless. View "California v. Potts" on Justia Law

Defendant Luke Garlinger robbed a motel clerk at gunpoint and threatened to shoot her if she did not comply with his demands. He was convicted by jury of second degree robbery and making a criminal threat, and also found to have personally used a firearm during the commission of the crimes. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate determinate term of 13 years in state prison and imposed other orders. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failing to object to expert testimony concerning the general location of defendant’s cell phone in relation to various cell towers to which that phone connected during the hours before and after the robbery, arguing the testimony was inadmissible under the "Kelly" standard and Evidence Code sections 801 and 802; and (2) the trial court’s erred in its determination, after conducting an in camera review of a certain detective’s personnel files, that the files contained no discoverable material. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of appeal concluded that the expert’s testimony was not rendered inadmissible by sections 801 and 802. Thus, defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection to the evidence. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the personnel files contained no discoverable material. View "California v. Garlinger" on Justia Law