Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves defendant Prospero Guadalupe Serna, who was found guilty by a jury of two misdemeanors: knowingly resisting arrest and willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer. The incident occurred when a California Highway Patrol officer encountered Serna walking within traffic lanes. Despite the officer's attempts to guide Serna to safety, Serna resisted multiple times, leading to his eventual detention with the help of additional officers. Serna's defense argued that his mental health issues should have been considered to negate the knowledge requirement for the offenses.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County reviewed the case, where Serna claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his attorney failed to introduce his mental health records and did not request a jury instruction regarding mental defects affecting intent. The appellate division held that since the crimes were of general intent, evidence of mental disease was not admissible to show lack of specific intent. The court also noted a split in authority regarding whether the offense required actual knowledge that the person resisted was a peace officer.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case to resolve whether Penal Code section 148(a)(1) requires actual knowledge that the person being resisted is a peace officer. The court found the analysis in People v. Mackreth persuasive, which held that section 148(a)(1) does not require actual knowledge. Instead, it is sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known the person was a police officer. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the statute does not necessitate the defendant's actual knowledge of the officer's status. View "People v. Serna" on Justia Law

In 2001, Luis Olmos was convicted of murder and other crimes committed at age 17, receiving a 33-years-to-life sentence. In 2023, Olmos petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1)(A), which allows juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) to seek resentencing. Olmos mistakenly believed his sentence was 41 years to life and argued it was the functional equivalent of LWOP. The trial court, also under the mistaken belief of a 41-years-to-life sentence, denied the petition, stating it was not equivalent to LWOP.Previously, a jury found Olmos guilty of first-degree murder, attempted premeditated murder, and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury. The jury also found true the allegations of personal use of a deadly weapon and that a principal was armed with a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to 33 years to life. A prior appellate court modified the judgment by staying a sentencing enhancement and awarding presentence credit, but otherwise affirmed the conviction.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court noted that section 1170(d)(1)(A) applies to juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP and, by extension, those with sentences functionally equivalent to LWOP. However, the court found that Olmos's 33-years-to-life sentence, which included eligibility for a parole hearing in December 2024, was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. The court compared Olmos's sentence to longer sentences in other cases and concluded it was not equivalent to LWOP. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Olmos's petition for recall and resentencing. View "P. v. Olmos" on Justia Law

Terrance Russell Terwilligar was convicted in 2006 of two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and three counts of battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The jury found him guilty of the assault charges, two lesser included counts of battery, and one count of battery resulting in serious bodily injury. He was sentenced to 53 years to life, including indeterminate terms of 25 years to life on the assault counts and three one-year prior prison term enhancements.In 2023, Terwilligar petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, which was enacted by Senate Bill 483 to provide retroactive relief from prior prison term enhancements. The trial court struck the three prior prison term enhancements but otherwise reimposed the original sentence, including the consecutive indeterminate terms of 25 years to life on the assault counts. Terwilligar also requested resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36), arguing that his current offenses were not serious or violent felonies and that he should be resentenced as a second-strike offender. The trial court denied this request.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act do not apply during resentencing under section 1172.75. The court followed other appellate decisions that concluded applying the Reform Act’s revised penalties during section 1172.75 resentencing would unconstitutionally amend the Reform Act. The court remanded the case for a determination of whether Terwilligar had shown good cause for filing a late petition under section 1170.126, the Reform Act’s resentencing provision, based on his claim that prison counselors misled him about his eligibility for relief. The trial court’s judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "P. v. Terwilligar" on Justia Law

Samuel Scott Copeland was convicted by a jury of attempting to prevent or dissuade a witness from giving testimony, in violation of Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (a)(2). The conviction was based on allegations that Copeland withheld rent to pressure his friend and landlord, Madelyn Wagner, from testifying in a civil dispute involving their mutual friend, Trina West. The trial court sentenced Copeland to two years of formal probation and imposed but stayed a sentence of 365 days in custody, pending successful completion of probation.The Superior Court of San Diego County declined to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. Copeland appealed, arguing that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Wagner was a “witness” within the meaning of section 136, subdivision (2) at the time of the alleged intimidation, that the jury instruction improperly expanded the definition of “witness,” and that the prosecution violated his First Amendment right to free speech.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the term “witness” as defined in section 136, subdivision (2) does not include potential future witnesses to a civil dispute. Therefore, there was not substantial evidence that Wagner was a “witness” as used in the statute of conviction. Additionally, the court found that the model instruction given to the jury misstated the law in a prejudicial manner by improperly expanding the definition of “witness” to include potential future witnesses.As a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that the conviction was not supported by substantial evidence and that the jury instruction contained a prejudicial misstatement of the law. View "P. v. Copeland" on Justia Law

In 2014, Donald Hill, Jr. handed a gun to Timothy Mitchell, who, along with Danny Jeffreys, opened fire on a group of men, resulting in the death of Tereaun Berry and the injury of his brother Trent. Hill was convicted in 2015 of first-degree murder and attempted murder. On appeal in 2018, his murder conviction was reversed due to a trial court error, but his attempted murder conviction was affirmed. In 2019, Hill entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to attempted premeditated murder of Tereaun Berry, and the original murder count was dismissed.Hill petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 in 2022. The district attorney conceded a prima facie case for relief, but the trial court ultimately denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. Hill argued that the trial court erred by relying on principles of implied malice and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that Hill was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 because he was not convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury instructions and verdicts established that Hill was convicted of attempted murder as a direct aider and abettor, a theory still valid under current law. The court also found that Hill's no contest plea to attempted premeditated murder indicated express malice, making him ineligible for relief. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Hill's petition for resentencing. View "People v. Hill" on Justia Law

Elijah Jackson, a Black man, was charged with carrying a loaded firearm after police found a handgun during a search of the car he was driving. Jackson filed a motion under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020, arguing that the police stopped and searched his car due to racial bias. The superior court denied his motion, stating that Jackson failed to establish a prima facie violation under the Racial Justice Act.The superior court found that the police officers were conducting a saturation patrol in a high-crime area and stopped Jackson for having illegally tinted windows. The officers observed Jackson and his brother, who were wearing clothing associated with gang members, and conducted a traffic stop. During the stop, the officers found a baseball bat in the car and, after a search, discovered an unregistered loaded firearm. Jackson argued that the stop and search were racially motivated, supported by statistical evidence showing racial disparities in traffic stops and searches by the San Diego Police Department (SDPD).The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that Jackson had produced facts that, if true, established a substantial likelihood of a violation of the Racial Justice Act. The court noted the statistical evidence showing racial disparities in SDPD's traffic stops and searches, as well as Jackson's and his brother's repeated stops for the same tinted windows without receiving citations. The court also considered the officers' focus on Jackson's and his brother's appearance and the neighborhood they were in, which suggested implicit bias.The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to grant an evidentiary hearing to consider Jackson's motion under the Racial Justice Act. The court emphasized the importance of addressing implicit bias in the criminal justice system and ensuring that race does not play a role in seeking or obtaining convictions. View "Jackson v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2018, Charles David Wilson was charged with 14 felony counts. In 2022, he pled no contest to one count of kidnapping, admitted to using a firearm, and acknowledged an aggravating factor. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the remaining charges and enhancements. Wilson received a 12-year prison sentence, consisting of an eight-year term for kidnapping and a four-year term for the firearm enhancement.Wilson later petitioned the trial court for resentencing under former section 1172.1, citing a new directive from the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office aimed at reducing reliance on enhancements and allegations. The directive suggested that prosecutors should generally not file or require defendants to plead to sentence enhancements and allowed for probation as the presumptive offer for certain felonies. However, the trial court determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Wilson’s petition because it had not recalled the sentence within 120 days of the original commitment, and Wilson did not have standing to file such a motion himself.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the directive from the district attorney’s office did not constitute a prosecutorial stipulation or recommendation for resentencing under section 1172.1. The court emphasized that internal directives do not create enforceable duties for prosecutors to recommend resentencing. Consequently, Wilson’s petition was deemed a defendant-initiated request for the court to exercise its own-motion jurisdiction, which the court lacked. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction to consider Wilson’s petition or any other arguments. View "People v. Wilson" on Justia Law

David Paul Planchard was convicted by a jury of stalking Debra Doe and violating a protective order. Planchard and Doe had a relationship from 1997 to 2000 and had a son together in 2006. Despite a restraining order issued in 2020, Planchard continued to harass Doe through public Facebook posts from 2016 to 2023. These posts included threats, derogatory comments, and references to Doe's past trauma. Planchard also showed up at Doe's house in May 2023, violating the protective order.The Superior Court of Sacramento County found Planchard guilty of stalking and violating a protective order. The jury determined that Planchard's actions, including his Facebook posts and visit to Doe's house, constituted a credible threat and harassment. The court sentenced him to five years for stalking and a stayed term of six months for violating the protective order.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. Planchard argued that his Facebook posts did not constitute direct contact and thus could not be considered harassment under the stalking statute. The court disagreed, citing precedent that indirect threats and harassment through third parties or public posts can still meet the statutory requirements for stalking. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, noting that the posts were intended to harass and threaten Doe, and it was reasonably foreseeable that she would see them.The court also addressed Planchard's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding no merit in his arguments. The court concluded that the Facebook posts were relevant and admissible, and that any failure to object by his counsel did not constitute ineffective assistance. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "P. v. Planchard" on Justia Law

In March 2016, Paul Palalaua Tuilaepa filed his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, claiming his 1987 death sentence violated Atkins v. Virginia because he was intellectually disabled. He provided declarations from experts diagnosing him with an intellectual disability and another declaration recanting flawed testimony from his original trial. In November 2016, California voters enacted Proposition 66, which aimed to expedite death penalty appeals and postconviction proceedings. The trial court concluded Tuilaepa’s petition was procedurally barred under section 1509 and did not state a prima facie case for relief based on intellectual disability.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Tuilaepa’s habeas petition in December 2020, ruling it was procedurally barred due to substantial delay and did not state a prima facie case for relief. The court found the expert declarations insufficient and inconsistent with other evidence in the record. Tuilaepa appealed, and the California Court of Appeal granted a certificate of appealability on whether the superior court erred in dismissing the petition as successive and without issuing an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and concluded that section 1509, subdivision (d), applied retroactively to Tuilaepa’s petition. The court found that Tuilaepa’s petition was not procedurally barred because he established a prima facie case for relief based on intellectual disability. The court reversed the superior court’s order and remanded the case with directions to issue an order to show cause on Tuilaepa’s Atkins claim. View "In re Tuilaepa" on Justia Law

Jorge Sarmiento-Zuniga was found guilty by a jury of oral copulation of a person he knew or should have known was intoxicated. In March 2023, the San Francisco Superior Court sentenced him to the middle term of six years in prison for this count. The court reviewed various documents, including the probation officer’s report and the victim’s impact statement, before announcing a tentative sentence. The court cited Sarmiento’s prior convictions and the victim’s repeated refusals captured on video as reasons for the middle term sentence. Despite the defense’s argument for a lesser sentence based on time already served, the court finalized the middle term sentence.The San Francisco Superior Court’s decision was appealed by Sarmiento, who argued that the court erred in considering his prior convictions without certified records and that the lower term should have been imposed due to the victim’s voluntary intoxication. The People contended that the appeal was forfeited because Sarmiento did not object to the sentence during the trial. They also argued that certified records were unnecessary for the middle term sentence and that none of the statutory circumstances mandating the lower term applied.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that Sarmiento forfeited his appeal by not objecting to the sentence in the trial court. However, the court exercised its discretion to review the merits and affirmed the sentence. The court found that Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(1) does not impose additional evidentiary requirements for a middle term sentence and that the trial court properly stated its reasons for the sentence on the record. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Sarmiento-Zuniga" on Justia Law