Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from her conviction of two counts of first degree robbery with personal use of a knife and while a principal was armed, one count of criminal threats involving the personal use of a knife, one count of false imprisonment with personal use of a knife, one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. The court concluded that the joint trial with her codefendant did not result in any violation of defendant's constitutional rights to counsel or a fair trial. The court also concluded that the trial court properly denied defendant's Marsden motion to substitute counsel given defendant's failure to offer a single instance of inadequate performance on the part of her counsel, much less make any showing that her right to the assistance of counsel was impaired. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Zendejas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the judgment entered following resentencing on the sole remaining felony conviction in the instant case. After the other felony convictions comprising the aggregate sentence had been reduced to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47, the trial court resentenced him on the remaining felony conviction to prison for eight years: the middle term of two years plus six years for the six previously dismissed prior prison term enhancements. The court reaffirmed the principle that prior prison term enhancements do not attach to a particular count or case. Here, the court concluded that the trial court had the authority to reimpose the prior prison term enhancements. The court also concluded that service of a prior prison term does not vanish when the underlying felony conviction is reduced to a misdemeanor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Acosta" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor petty theft by plea. At the time of the theft, she was on probation in an unrelated Vehicle Code case. Her probation was revoked and reinstated in the earlier case and probation was granted in the second case, with imposition of sentence suspended. In each case, the court imposed a jail term as a condition of probation. In the earlier case, the court awarded credits for presentence custody. In the second case, the court denied credit against the probationary jail term, which was to be served consecutively to the term for the earlier case. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting an argument that defendant was entitled to dual credits for that period of presentence custody because it was entirely attributable to the single theft crime. Penal Code 2900.5(b), states "credit shall be given only where the custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted. Credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.” The limitation applies where a single period of custody is to be credited arising from the commission of one new offense, there are dual custodial restraints, and the court imposes a probationary jail term in one case and a consecutive probationary term in the other. View "People v. Santa Ana" on Justia Law

Moreno was arraigned for felony domestic violence and false imprisonment. The court issued a domestic violence protective order and set bail. Bankers issued a bail bond of $50,000 to secure Moreno‟s release. Moreno appeared at two hearings. On February 22, Moreno appeared for a plea hearing. The prosecutor announced that she was filing an amended complaint, adding misdemeanor counts of violating a protective order and aggravated trespass, and sought an increase to the bail amount. After an unreported bench conference, the court did not increase bail and set the preliminary examination for April 5. Moreno did not appear; the court ordered the bail forfeited. The court subsequently granted Bankers‟s request to extend the appearance period by 180 days to April 2013. In April 2013, Bankers moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond, arguing that the court had materially increased its risk when it permitted Moreno to remain free after the amended complaint was filed. The court noted that the bond stated that it applied to “duly authorized amendments” and entered judgment on the bond. The court of appeal affirmed. Although the amendment to the complaint was not duly authorized, it did not materially increase the risk and did not require the court to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond. View "People v. Bankers Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Jane told her mother that her father had sexually abused her. Defendant admitted the abuse and the abuse stopped. Months later, Jane‟s mother called 911 after defendant became “very drunk ... very aggressive.” Jane told a detective that defendant had touched her private parts from the time she was five years old until she was 10 years old. Defendant admitted to a few incidents of nonforcible abuse that occurred in a single one-year period in Chowchilla, Jane told the police about years of forcible abuse, beginning in Mexico when she was five years old and continuing in Chowchilla and Watsonville until she was 10 years old. Defendant was convicted of 16 counts of forcible lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code 288(b)) and sentenced to 86 years in prison. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that specific charged acts occurred during each of the one-year periods alleged in the information since it alleged only that the acts occurred “on or about” each of those periods. The court rejected claims that there was not substantial evidence of force or duress and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to the police and in admitting expert testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant was released from prison and placed on postrelease community supervision under Penal Code 3456, supervised by Contra Costa County probation officer Concepcion. Defendant was subject to warrantless searches of his person and possessions and was prohibited from possessing pornographic material. Concord police contacted Concepcion 50 weeks into defendant’s supervision, having received information that defendant was chatting online with teenage girls about sexual matters, A search of defendant’s home was approved. Because of scheduling conflicts, Concepcion and the police searched defendant’s home a year and one day after defendant was placed on supervision. The officers found videos and, after being advised of his constitutional rights, defendant admitted receiving emailed pictures depicting girls five to eight years old, posing naked and in lewd positions, and that some of the pictures also depicted adult penises. Concepcion had not begun assessing defendant’s eligibility for discharge from supervision at the time of the search. The court denied defendant’s suppression motion based on statutory language, providing that a person shall be discharged 30 days after he successfully completes a one-year term on postrelease community supervision. The court of appeal affirmed. The Act provides that a person’s successful completion of a one-year period may trigger immediate discharge, but may also trigger an assessment of conduct, giving the agency time to either seek modification or revocation of supervision, or discharge the person. View "People v. Young" on Justia Law

Police stopped Delconte’s vehicle, in which Nice was a passenger, for failing to signal before a turn and for speeding. Both appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant. Nice admitted upon questioning that they had used methamphetamine the night before and the drugs might be in a bag in the car. They were taken into custody. A bag on the backseat contained substances found to be methamphetamine and cocaine in baggies apparently packaged for sale; ketamine, ground Dimethyltryptamine, Viagra, Cialis, Adderall, Oxycodone tablets; and a collapsible baton and two firearms, one of which was loaded. The police later conducted a search, pursuant to a warrant, of property leased by Delconte, finding additional firearms and narcotics. The court denied a motion to suppress. Defendants each entered into a negotiated plea agreement. The court suspended imposition of Nice’s sentence and granted three years of supervised probation, including one year in county jail. The court denied Delconte probation and imposed a term of six years in state prison. The court of appeal upheld denial of the motion to suppress, stating that the officer’s visual estimate of defendants’ speed as he also was moving was sufficiently grounded in objective facts to constitute reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was speeding, but modified conditions of Nice’s sentence. View "People v. Nice" on Justia Law

While repeatedly shouting “Nortes” or “Nortenos,” defendants Salvador Benjamin Vasquez, Jr., Jose Antonio Duran, and Joseph Vincent Sisneros violently assaulted and robbed a stranger in a business parking lot and then threatened or attacked several employees who witnessed the beating and called police. They were tried jointly and were each convicted of multiple offenses with related enhancements. Defendants raised numerous purported errors on appeal, namely errors pertaining to the conduct of trial, the charging of the jury and insufficient evidence. Finding no merit to these challenges, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

This dispute arose when Financial Casualty posted bond for Damon Christoph Sandoval's release from custody. The parties dispute whether the statutory scheme regarding bail bonds deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the bond if it failed to provide Financial Casualty with written notice of the forfeiture. The court concluded that the trial court lost jurisdiction over a bail bond pursuant to the terms of Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (b)1 when a bail forfeiture was declared in open court and set aside on the same day, and when the court clerk failed to mail notice of the forfeiture to the surety and bond agent. In this case, the trial court erred when it denied the motion by Financial Casualty to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bond, and also when the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the County. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc." on Justia Law

Lehman was convicted of multiple counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act against a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288(a), multiple counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act against a child age 14 to 15 (288(c)(1)), multiple counts of oral copulation of a minor (288a(b)(1)), and multiple counts of sexual penetration of a minor (289(h). The victims were his grandaughters. The court of appeal previously reversed three of the convictions, but affirmed in all other respects. In this appeal, that court affirmed an order awarding a total of $1 million in noneconomic restitution to the victims. That the victims declined to submit a demand for a specific amount of noneconomic restitution does not mean they did not wish to seek such restitution. Nor does the law require victims to formally submit such a demand. As there is no fixed standard for calculating noneconomic losses, it is unclear exactly what more the trial court could have done to explain the basis for the noneconomic restitution award. View "People v. Lehman" on Justia Law