Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Guy Miles served 19 years of his 75 years to life sentence in state prison. A jury convicted him of armed robbery . For all of those years, Miles has claimed that he was wrongfully convicted. The Court of Appeals concluded after review of his arguments on appeal that Miles presented “new evidence” of “such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial.” Miles’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted, and his convictions vacated. The prosecution could elect to retry Miles within the statutory timeframe. Otherwise, Miles was to be released from custody. View "In re Miles" on Justia Law

The juvenile court dismissed Joshua R.’s juvenile adjudication after he successfully completed probation. The court declined to seal his record, however, because of an ongoing probation condition stating he was not permitted to own a firearm before he turned 30 years old. Joshua argued this was error. The Court of Appeal agreed: "[t]he pertinent issue is whether the substantive Penal Code section addressing future firearm ownership for minors in his situation conflicts with the Welfare and Institutions Code section requiring the juvenile court to seal records upon the successful completion of probation. We conclude these statutes can be harmonized to effect the purposes of each." View "In re Joshua R." on Justia Law

Defendant, sixteen-years-old at the time of the crimes, was convicted of one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder. The court concluded that defendant's Batson/Wheeler motions were properly denied where the totality of the relevant facts dispel any inference of a discriminatory intent on the part of the prosecutor in exercising her peremptory challenges to excuse three African-American prospective jurors; defendant's April 13, 2013 statement to the police was properly admitted where he validly waived his Miranda rights and his post-Miranda statement was voluntary; and defendant's Eighth Amendment challenge to his 80 year to life prison sentence has been rendered moot where the legislature has enacted Penal Code section 3051, and in light of the holding in People v. Franklin, where defendant will be entitled to a youth offender parole hearing with a meaningful opportunity for release after 25 years of incarceration. The court remanded the matter for the trial court to follow the procedures outlined in Franklin to see if defendant is entitled to a hearing to present evidence relevant to his future youthful offender parole hearing. View "People v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendants Jarrod, Alphonso, James, and Jonathan appeal their convictions for multiple counts of kidnapping to commit another crime, second degree robbery, kidnapping, and felony false imprisonment, in connection with a series of robberies targeting retail electronics stores. The court concluded that insufficient evidence supported the convictions for kidnapping to commit robbery and kidnapping, but sufficient evidence supported the convictions for felony false imprisonment; the evidence of uncharged robberies was improperly admitted but did not prejudice Jarrod; a victim's identification of James's voice was inadmissible hearsay; the prosecutor's conduct, whether considered individually or cumulatively, did not deny defendants a fair trial; and the trial court did not commit judicial misconduct. Accordingly, the court reversed defendants' convictions for aggravated kidnapping and kidnapping, and affirmed as to the other convictions. Pursuant to Penal Code section 654, the sentences for the false imprisonment convictions on count 2 (Jarrod), count 7 (Alphonso), count 10 (Jarrod, Alphonso, and James), count 13 (Alphonso), and counts 16, 18, and 20 (Alphonso) must be stayed; the portion of the restitution order requiring Alphonso and James to pay restitution related to the Riverside Diamond Wireless robbery on April 25 (counts 2 and 3) and the Fontana Diamond Wireless robbery on May 8 (counts 4, 5, and 6) must be stricken; and the abstracts of judgment for Jarrod, Alphonso, and James shall be modified to reflect joint and several liability for restitution. View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

In 2015, Appellant Mic Goodrich filed a motion seeking reclassification of his underlying 2007 felony theft offense under Proposition 47. The court granted the motion, which was unopposed. At the time Goodrich petitioned for and received reclassification of his felony offense, Goodrich was subject to a civil commitment in a state hospital as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). This commitment began in 2008 when Goodrich completed serving his prison sentence. When the State petitioned again in 2015 to have Goodrich recommitted as an MDO, Goodrich opposed the petition on the ground that the felony conviction underlying his original commitment as an MDO had been redesignated as a misdemeanor, and that as a result, he no longer qualified for an MDO commitment. The trial court rejected Goodrich's argument and granted the State’s petition to recommit him. On appeal, Goodrich renewed his argument that the redesignation of his original offense as a misdemeanor means that he no longer meets the criteria for an initial commitment as an MDO, and, therefore, he was entitled to be released from his commitment. After review, the Court of Appeal disagreed with Goodrich's contention and affirmed the trial court's recommitment of Goodrich as an MDO. View "California v. Goodrich" on Justia Law

When arrested by law enforcement, defendant and admitted felon Sherone Bradley possessed a firearm he admitted possessing before and during the charged offense. Defendant was ultimately convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and argued on appeal that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion and denied him his constitutional rights when it denied his motion for disclosure of a confidential informant whom defendant claimed entrapped him; and (2) when it sustained a government agent's invocation of the privilege not to testify regarding the informant. The Court of Appeal concluded after review the trial court did not err. Any error, if there was one, was harmless under any standard of prejudicial error. View "California v. Bradley" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and possession of heroin for sale (section 11351). In 2013,he entered a plea of no contest to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code 11350,(b))as a lesser included offense to count two; count one was dismissed. Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. In 2015, the District Attorney filed a petition to revoke probation following defendant‘s arrest for possession of controlled substances. Defendant requested that the court reduce the level of the underlying conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted in 2014, reducing certain offenses that could be charged as either felonies or misdemeanors to misdemeanors. Under Penal Code 1170.18(a), resentenced individuals are still subject to a ban on possessing a firearm. To avoid the restriction on firearm possession, defendant argued he was not “currently serving a sentence.” The trial court rejected that contention but reduced defendant‘s conviction to a misdemeanor and terminated probation. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting his argument that defendant should be free from the prohibition on firearms possession. View "People v. Bastidas" on Justia Law

Defendant, approached by police after he was identified as the perpetrator of a robbery, threatened and resisted officers, making reference to his gang affiliation. At trial, the prosecution‘s gang expert testified regarding the history and activities of affiliated gangs and their territories. The expert testified that defendant has numerous tattoos that demonstrate his affiliation with area gangs. The expert identified specific members of the gangs and, presented with hypotheticals that mirrored the circumstances of the incident shown at trial, explained how the hypothesized conduct would benefit a gang. Defendant’s conviction of various offenses, including threatening public officers, was affirmed in 2015. After the California Supreme Court granted review and decided People v. Sanchez (2016), it remanded for reconsideration in light of the Sanchez decision. The court of appeal again affirmed, after analyzing the testimony of the gang expert introduced by the prosecution under both the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution and California‘s hearsay rule. View "People v. Ochoa" on Justia Law

Bernice Espinoza appealed when her petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging the one-year suspension of her driver’s license by the Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) was denied. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the record supported the trial court’s implied findings that: (1) Espinoza was lawfully arrested on reasonable cause to believe she had been driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), (2) Espinoza refused to submit to and failed to complete a chemical test as required under the implied consent law; and (3) Espinoza was afforded a fair hearing before the Department. View "Espinoza v. Shiomoto" on Justia Law

In May 2015, police detained defendant M.F. at his high school after he gave one of his teachers a letter stating that she "should be worried about getting shot." When detained, he was wearing an empty holster. The police searched M.F.'s backpack and found journals that described a plan to kill individuals associated with schools that he had attended. The journals also contained a list of supplies that he would need to carry out his plan and "hit lists" of potential victims, with various types of "punishments" (such as wound, torture, death, rape, or a combination thereof) next to each name. In addition, one journal entry indicated that M.F. had been "faking it" while participating in anger management and counseling following his 2013 expulsion. At home, police searched M.F.'s bedroom and found 20 rounds of live ammunition, several replica firearms, gun magazines, gun cleaning equipment and gun holsters, including one for a Glock firearm, a handgun case, a folding knife, black ski masks and a balaclava. Police also found tactical gear, including a ballistic helmet, vest and armor plates. Several items found in M.F.'s bedroom had been checked off on his supply list. M.F. told police that he had been involved in a militia for several years, admitted having borrowed a Glock and a rifle from militia members, and that the militia had given him body armor, which he said he used "mostly" for his job as a paintball referee. He claimed that his journal entries were intended to be cathartic and he had no intention of physically harming anyone. Regarding his participation in anger management and decision-making counseling in 2014, he admitted that the programs had been ineffective in helping him appropriately channel his anger. M.F. appealed a juvenile court's disposition order declaring him a ward of the court, committing him to a residential program, and setting probation conditions. He contended the court erred by: (1) admitting cumulative and prejudicial testimony and exhibits at the disposition hearing; (2) committing him to a 480-day residential program; (3) imposing an unconstitutionally overbroad probation condition restricting his possession of electronic devices; (4) designating one of his offenses as a felony without a proper section 702 finding; and (5) failing to deduct his predisposition custody credits when calculating his maximum term of confinement. The Court of Appeal concluded the juvenile court erred in imposing an overly broad probation condition regarding electronic devices and in failing to deduct predisposition custody credits when determining M.F.'s maximum time of confinement. The Court reversed the disposition order in part, and remanded for the juvenile court to modify its order to include: (1) a more narrowly tailored probation condition, and (2) a deduction of M.F.'s predisposition custody credits in its determination of his maximum period of confinement. In all other respects, the Court affirmed the order. View "In re M.F." on Justia Law