Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted defendants, Michael Canizales and KeAndre Windfield of first degree murder, during which a principal discharged a firearm proximately causing death, and two counts of attempted willful, premeditated and deliberate murder, during which a principal discharged a firearm. The jury found that all the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Canizales was sentenced to 25 years to life and two terms of 15 years to life and Windfield was sentenced to two terms of 25 years to life and two terms of 15 years to life plus 40 years. They appealed, claiming jury instruction and sentencing errors. The Court of Appeal rejected their contentions. But since the Court originally decided this case, the California Supreme Court in "California v. Chiu," (59 Cal.4th 155 (2014)) held that "a defendant cannot be convicted of first degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine." Because the Court of Appeal could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict of first degree murder for Canizales on the legally valid theory that he aided and abetted premeditated and deliberate murder, the Court reversed his conviction for that offense and offered the State the opportunity to retry him for first degree murder as an aider and abettor of that offense or to accept a reduction to second degree murder. View "California v. Canizales" on Justia Law

The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code 6600) provides that, under certain circumstances, a person who has been committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) may be conditionally released into the community for outpatient supervision and treatment. Certain conditionally released SVPs who have a history of sexual misconduct with children “shall not be placed within one-quarter mile” of a school; the statute does not describe how to measure the distance. Christman served his prison term for multiple sex offenses against boys under the age of 15. He was determined to be a SVP in 1997 and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital. In 2012 the trial court granted Christman’s petition for outpatient status. The Department of State Hospitals was unable to find suitable housing for Christman in San Francisco. The court expanded the search. Housing was located in Contra Costa County near Willow Cove Elementary School. The county prosecutor was notified. Following a hearing, the court rejected a straight-line method of measurement and employed “a pedestrian route traveled,” method that took intervening structures and obstacles into account and increased the distance between the placement site and the school, then approved Christman’s placement. The appeals court reversed, finding that the distance should have been calculated using the straight-line method, which puts the residence less than one-quarter mile from the school.View "People v. Christman" on Justia Law

Doolittle was a registered securities broker/dealer, and a registered investment advisor. He or his corporations held licenses, permits, or certificates to engage in real estate and insurance brokerage and tax preparation. Around 1990 his primary business became “trust deeds investments,” in which he “would arrange groups of investors together to buy those loans or to fund those transactions for different types of individuals and institutional borrowers.” After investors lost money, Doolittle was convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison for three counts of theft by false pretenses; six counts of theft from an elder or dependent adult; nine counts of false statements or omissions in the sale of securities; selling unregistered securities; and sale of a security by willful and fraudulent use of a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud The appeals court reversed in part, holding that Doolittle’s challenge that the trial court’s implied finding of timely prosecution was not supported by substantial evidence required remand with respect to two of the charges. A further hearing may be necessary with respect to applicability of a sentence enhancement for aggregate losses over $500,000. Doolittle’s conviction for sale of unregistered securities and sale of securities by means of a fraudulent device did not rest on the same conduct as his convictions for fraud against specific victims; his sentence on the former counts therefore does not offend the proscription against duplicative punishment. View "People v. Doolittle" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion to suppress, contending that a warrantless draw of his blood violated the Fourth Amendment as construed in Missouri v. McNeely and Schmerber v. California. An officer asked a nurse to take draw blood from defendant after defendant was involved in a serious vehicle collision and appeared to be under the influence of a drug stimulant. The court concluded that the blood draw was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent within the meaning of Davis v. United States, and therefore was not subject to the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. View "People v. Youn" on Justia Law

The trial court ruled that defendant was ineligible for resentencing because his current convictions include criminal threats, a serious felony. The sole indeterminate life term defendant is serving is for stalking, a non-serious, non-violent felony. The court held that defendant's mere conviction of four serious felonies for criminal threats does not permit the denial of his resentencing petition. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of the Penal Code section 1170.126 petition for resentencing. View "People v. Atkins" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to possession of matter depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct. On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that, although the search of defendant's cell phone was unlawful under the recent decision in Riley v. California, which overruled People v. Diaz, the search falls within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule because Diaz was applicable at the time of the search. Therefore, the failure of the trial court to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the cell phone does not require a reversal of the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress or his conviction. View "People v. Macabeo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from an order sustaining the County's demurrer without leave to amend, contending that, under civil contract law, his plea of guilt is invalid because he was a minor when it was entered. The court concluded that dismissal of the complaint was proper because plaintiff failed to state a cause of action where he may not challenge his criminal conviction by means of a civil lawsuit. View "Brown v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Appellant Leticia Garcia was charged with sexually abusing a girl she babysat. At trial, the prosecutor attempted to show she was a lesbian. The prosecutor asserted during closing argument that her supposed attraction to other women gave her a motive to sexually abuse the victim. While disavowing the notion that all lesbians are child molesters, she nonetheless argued it was very telling that appellant “is attracted to females” and the victim was “a female child.” In the end, the jury convicted appellant, and the trial court sentenced her to 16 years in prison. After review of appellant's argument on appeal, the Court of Appeal believed appellant’s sexual orientation was not relevant to any issue in this case. The trial court was largely successful in limiting the jury’s exposure to evidence regarding appellant’s sexual orientation, so the Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant’s requests for a mistrial during the evidentiary phase of the trial. "But we cannot overlook the fact the prosecutor repeatedly attempted to make an issue out of appellant’s sexual orientation and emphasized this issue to the jury in closing argument. This was prejudicial misconduct. It leaves us with no confidence the jury could have evaluated the charges against appellant in a fair and impartial manner and requires us to reverse the judgment." View "California v. Garcia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted David Kent of possessing child pornography and distributing child pornography. It also convicted him of possessing methamphetamine for sale and possessing cocaine. The court imposed a sentence of three years and four months, but suspended execution of the sentence and placed Kent on probation under various terms and conditions, including a 365-day jail term and lifetime registration as a sex offender. The trial court found Kent violated probation and lifted the suspension of his sentence. Kent’s appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in "California v. Wende. Counsel summarized the facts of the case, the procedural history, and “possible” legal issues with citations to the record and appropriate authority, but raised no specific issues, and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues. Counsel did not argue against her client or assert the appeal was frivolous. Counsel submitted a declaration stating she reviewed the case, she advised Kent of the nature of the brief, she sent Kent a copy of the brief and the appellate record, and informed him he could file a brief on his own behalf. Counsel did not seek to withdraw, but she advised Kent he could move to have her relieved. The Court of Appeal gave Kent 30 days to file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond. The Court of Appeal took the opportunity of this case to emphasize for appointed counsel to represent indigent defendants on appeal that briefs identifying possible appellate issues in what turn out to be Wende matters remain welcome. "While an appellate court need not delve into or even pass on the merits of issues noted in a Wende brief, presenting those issues can ensure counsel does not discharge his or her duty in a merely summary fashion, and guides the court to pertinent legal issues and principles, thereby aiding the court in its Wende review. We therefore encourage counsel to continue to submit such briefs." View "California v. Kent" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). The court held that the version of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq., under which defendant was committed is constitutional. Every published opinion to consider the issue has concluded the applicable version of the SVPA passes constitutional must under the strict scrutiny test and has found McKee II persuasive. The court rejected defendant's claim that McKee II was wrongly decided. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of commitment. View "People v. Gray" on Justia Law