Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed an order granting the petition of defendant Justin Peacock to reduce his felony conviction of a violation of Penal Code section 496d to a misdemeanor. In February 2012, defendant was charged in a felony complaint with receiving a stolen motor vehicle, and charged with allegations that he had suffered a previous conviction of the same offense in April 2010, and had served three prior prison terms. In April 2012, defendant entered into a plea agreement under which he pled no contest to section 496d, subdivision (a). The agreement provided that the prior allegations would be dismissed, and the district attorney would recommend a 16-month sentence to be served at “half time.” Defendant was sentenced consistently with the plea agreement. The State contends that the trial court’s order was in error because it was unauthorized under Penal Code section 1170.18, and any new sentence was unauthorized. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in redesignating defendant’s offense as a misdemeanor, and accordingly reversed the order. View "California v. Peacock" on Justia Law

Assembly Bill 2124, as enacted at Penal Code sections 1001.94-1001.99, created a “Deferral of Sentencing Pilot Program” in Los Angeles County. At issue was whether a defendant must pay the fines that a misdemeanor charge would otherwise call for in order to obtain the relief contemplated by the pilot program, namely, an order striking the defendant’s guilty or no contest plea and dismissing the charge. The court answered in the negative and concluded that the trial court correctly deferred sentencing for defendant in this case. View "People v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of second degree robbery and attempted grand theft person, appealed the denial of his motion for recall and resentencing pursuant to Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, Penal Code 1170.126. After the parties completed initial briefing, the California Supreme Court held in People v. Johnson that an inmate is eligible for resentencing under section 1170.126 on a current conviction that is neither serious nor violent, even though he or she has another current conviction that is serious or violent. In this case, the fact that defendant was convicted of robbery does not make him ineligible as a matter of law for recall of sentence and resentencing on the attempted grand theft conviction, absent a showing the attempted grand theft itself qualified as a serious or violent felony. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for a new hearing at which the court should determine defendant's eligibility for recall and resentencing on the attempted grand theft count in accordance with section 1170.126, subdivisions (e) and (f). View "People v. Lynn" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the superior court's denial of his petition for reduction of his 2012 felony conviction of attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle to a misdemeanor. The court affirmed the judgment on the basis that attempted car burglary is not among the offenses reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47, and the new statutory scheme does not violate equal protection of the law under the Eighth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution. View "People v. Acosta" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with camping in a prohibited public place, possession of a milk crate, and loitering under the Santa Monica Pier. At issue on appeal is whether Penal Code section 991 vests the trial court with authority to dismiss only some of the charges for lack of probable cause, or whether it must dismiss the complaint in its entirety or not at all. The court concluded that the Legislature intended for sections 991 and 995 to serve analogous purposes - to weed out unsupported charges prior to trial - in the misdemeanor and felony contexts; the court agreed with the defense that section 991 must be interpreted to permit the trial courts to dismiss not only an entire complaint, but also individual charges within the complaint, if it finds the charges are not supported by probable cause; and many of the public policy objectives that underpin section 995 also support a reading of section 991 that permits trial courts to dismiss individual charges from a complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the appellate division. View "People v. McGowan" on Justia Law

Inmate Manuel Martinez filed a habeas corpus petition to challenge a December 2011 decision by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) officials at Pelican Bay to “validate” him as a gang associate of the Mexican Mafia pursuant to former section 3378 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. This validation led to his transfer to Pelican Bay’s Security Housing Unit (SHU) for an indeterminate term. In May 2014, the trial court granted Martinez’s petition, ordering his gang validation expunged and his residency in the SHU based on that validation terminated. Clark Ducart, the Warden of Pelican Bay State Prison, appealed, asking that the Court of Appeal overturn the trial court’s order and deny Martinez’s petition. The warden argued that Martinez’s participation in a prison “disturbance” (Martinez prefers prison “protest”) of Southern Hispanics ordered by a person who was later validated as a Mexican Mafia associate (the Mexican Mafia affiliate) established a direct link. The Court, in affirming the grant of habeas relief, found that the warden’s evidence showed Martinez acted consistent with the order of the Mexican Mafia affiliate, but not that he did so in order to comply with an order from that specific person. The warden did not provide any evidence connecting Martinez to the Mexican Mafia gang affiliate without an intervening step or interruption. Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded there was no evidence of this “direct link” between the two. Martinez should not have been validated as a Mexican Mafia gang associate. View "In re Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a felony charge of grand theft from a person and agreed to admit a prior strike and receive a six-year prison sentence, in exchange for dismissal of the more serious felony charge of robbery. Proposition 47 was passed over a year later. In this case, the court concluded that reduction of the plea-bargained felony charge to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 deprives the People of the benefit of the bargain of its plea agreement. Therefore, the court concluded that the People are entitled to withdraw from the plea and reinstate the previously-dismissed charges, thus returning the parties to the status quo ante. The court denied the writ of prohibition. View "Harris v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon. A jury found true an allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, a homeless man whom defendant beat with a tire iron. The court concluded that the trial court erred in quashing the search warrant where there was probable cause to issue the warrant and no proper basis for holding a Franks hearing in the first place; there was no error in the trial court's refusal to exclude the victim's civil attorney from attending the trial; the court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary error; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to theft in violation of Penal Code section 484(e), subdivision (d) and admitted a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b). At issue on appeal was whether Proposition 47 reduced the offense of theft of access card information under Penal Code section 484e, subdivision (d)1 to a misdemeanor, provided the theft involved property valued at less than $950. The court found nothing in the statutes enacted or amended by Proposition 47 or the voters’ intent behind the initiative to suggest theft of access card information should be treated any differently than other theft offenses subject to reduction under Proposition 47. Therefore, the court disagreed with People v. Cuen and People v. Grayson, two cases from different districts which answered the issue in the negative. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine whether defendant’s theft involved property valued at less than $950 in order to trigger the resentencing provisions of Proposition 47. View "People v. Romanowski" on Justia Law

In December 2013, Giovanni Gonzales took two bank checks from his grandmother. He went into a Bank of America twice during regular business hours and cashed the checks. The checks were for $125 each, written payable to Gonzales, and signed with his grandmother's name. Gonzales's grandmother stated she did not sign the checks and Gonzales did not have permission to use her checks. Gonzales pleaded guilty to second degree commercial burglary. The trial court denied Gonzales's petition for recall of his felony sentence. He appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying his petition because: (1) the conduct underlying his offense meets the statutory definition of misdemeanor shoplifting under section 459.5, a crime added in 2014 by Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (the Act); and (2) section 1170.18 impliedly applies to convictions pursuant to section 459. The Court of Appeal rejected Gonzales's arguments and affirmed the order. View "California v. Gonzales" on Justia Law