Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Eddie Sorto was sentenced to over 100 years in prison for crimes committed at age 15, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, assault, and shooting at an occupied vehicle. The jury found multiple special-circumstance allegations and enhancements true. After serving 15 years, Sorto petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole (LWOP) and thus entitled him to relief under equal protection principles.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Sorto’s petition, stating that he was not eligible for relief under section 1170(d) because he had not been sentenced to an explicit LWOP term. The court did not address Sorto’s equal protection argument directly but noted that he was eligible for parole after 25 years under section 3051, which it found sufficient to deny the petition.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that juvenile offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to relief under section 1170(d) based on equal protection guarantees. The court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the case People v. Heard was wrongly decided and contrary to California Supreme Court precedent. The court also held that parole eligibility under section 3051 does not render offenders ineligible for relief under section 1170(d).The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of Sorto’s petition and remanded the case for the lower court to consider whether Sorto meets the other requirements for relief under section 1170(d). View "People v. Sorto" on Justia Law

In 1998, Denail Shane Green was charged with possessing cocaine base with intent to sell. The information also alleged a prison prior for a 1990 robbery conviction and two prior strike offenses, including the robbery and a lewd act involving a minor. Green was acquitted of the possession charge but convicted of a lesser offense. He admitted to the prior convictions and was sentenced to 26 years to life, including a one-year enhancement for the prison prior.The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified Green as potentially serving an invalid enhancement under Senate Bill 483, which retroactively invalidated certain prison prior enhancements. Green sought resentencing under the new law. The Superior Court of San Diego County denied his request, reasoning that his prison prior enhancement remained valid because he served concurrent terms for both the robbery and the lewd act.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the enhancement was not imposed for a sexually violent offense as required by the new law. The information had only alleged the robbery as the basis for the enhancement, not the lewd act. Therefore, the enhancement was invalid under section 1172.75. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for a full resentencing, directing the trial court to eliminate the invalid enhancement and apply any other changes in the law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion. View "P. v. Green" on Justia Law

Two police officers on routine patrol stopped a car for a traffic violation. Officer Booth approached the driver, Luis Ramirez, while Officer Driscoll approached the passenger side. Booth ordered Ramirez out of the car after noticing a bulge at Ramirez’s waistband, suspecting he might be armed. As Ramirez exited the car, Driscoll saw a handgun behind the driver’s seat. Ramirez filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the stop.The Superior Court of Orange County granted Ramirez’s motion to suppress, reasoning that there was no change in circumstances regarding the officers’ safety between the beginning of the stop and the point at which Ramirez was removed from his car. The court dismissed the case because the prosecution could not proceed without the excluded evidence. The Orange County District Attorney appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that under the Fourth Amendment, once a vehicle is lawfully detained for a traffic violation, an officer may order the driver to exit the vehicle without any additional justification. The court determined that Officer Booth’s actions were permissible and that there were no Fourth Amendment violations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal order and remanded the matter with directions to deny Ramirez’s motion to suppress evidence. View "P. v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Kurt Brady Obermueller was convicted of stalking Kathy B., a former girlfriend from junior high school, after a 30-year hiatus in contact. In 2018, Obermueller began sending Kathy B. sexually charged and threatening emails, texts, and online communications. Despite a restraining order issued in 2019, he continued his harassment by sending messages to Kathy B.'s father and sister, who forwarded them to her. These messages included disturbing references to weapons and violence, causing Kathy B. significant distress and fear for her safety.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially handled the case, where Obermueller was charged with stalking and disobeying a court order. He was convicted on both counts and sentenced to five years in custody. Obermueller appealed, arguing that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted stalking, based on his claim that he only contacted Kathy B.'s family members and not her directly.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that the method of conveying threats is irrelevant under the stalking statute, which requires only that the defendant made a credible threat with the intent to place the victim in reasonable fear. The court found that Obermueller's actions constituted completed stalking, not attempted stalking, as he was recklessly aware that his messages would be perceived as threatening. The court affirmed the trial court's decision not to instruct the jury on attempted stalking, as there was no substantial evidence to support the lesser offense. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "People v. Obermueller" on Justia Law

Nathan Howard Moore pleaded no contest to stalking under Penal Code section 646.9(a). He was sentenced to 36 months of probation and 96 days in jail, with credit for 48 days served. Moore violated his probation four times, leading to its permanent revocation and a two-year prison sentence with credit for 417 days. He appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting pretrial mental health diversion under section 1001.36.The Mendocino County Superior Court handled the initial proceedings. After Moore's fourth probation violation, the court revoked his probation and imposed a two-year prison sentence. Moore filed a notice of appeal, stating that the appeal was based on issues arising after the plea that did not affect its validity. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that Moore needed a certificate of probable cause to pursue his appeal. The court referenced People v. Braden, which clarified that requests for pretrial mental health diversion must be made before a plea or trial. Consequently, an attorney's failure to request such diversion is not a matter occurring after the plea. The court found that Moore's appeal, based on ineffective assistance of counsel for not seeking pretrial mental health diversion, affected the validity of the plea. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of a certificate of probable cause. View "People v. Moore" on Justia Law

Jose Oliveras, serving a life sentence without parole, was found with over 600 pornographic images on a tablet provided by the prison. The images were stored on a removable SIM card. Oliveras pled guilty to an administrative violation for possession of contraband and received counseling without reprimand. However, at a subsequent classification review, his computer clearance was rescinded, citing regulations that prohibit inmates with a history of computer fraud or abuse from accessing computers.Oliveras filed a grievance with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), arguing that his violation did not constitute "computer fraud or abuse" as defined by Penal Code section 502. The CDCR denied his grievance and appeal. Oliveras then petitioned the Del Norte County Superior Court, which denied his petition, stating that the hearing officer's decision was supported by "some evidence."The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that Oliveras's conduct did not meet the criteria for "computer fraud or abuse" under Penal Code section 502. The court noted that Oliveras had permission to access the tablet and there was no evidence he used computer services without permission or for fraudulent purposes. The court concluded that the CDCR's interpretation of Oliveras's conduct as "computer fraud or abuse" was incorrect.The Court of Appeal ordered the CDCR to vacate any reference to a section 502 violation from Oliveras's record and reversed the October 2022 revocation of his computer clearance. The court directed the CDCR to remove any reference to this revocation from Oliveras's file. View "In re Oliveras" on Justia Law

Travis Mitchell Hicks was convicted by a jury of attempted murder and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, among other charges, following a shooting incident at a bar. The altercation began with an argument between Hicks and the victim, who was intoxicated. Hicks claimed he shot the victim in self-defense after being threatened. The victim was shot in the arm and back, resulting in paralysis. Hicks fled but was apprehended the next day and eventually admitted to the shooting. The Riverside County District Attorney charged Hicks with multiple offenses, including attempted murder and assault, and the jury found him guilty on all counts.In the Superior Court of Riverside County, Hicks's defense objected to the prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to dismiss an African-American juror, arguing it was discriminatory under Batson v. Kentucky and People v. Wheeler. The trial court allowed the challenge, accepting the prosecutor's reasons that the juror's prior felony convictions and opinionated demeanor were race-neutral justifications. Hicks was sentenced to a combined determinate and indeterminate prison term.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in accepting the prosecutor's reasons for the peremptory challenge. The appellate court determined that the juror's prior felony convictions and alleged opinionated demeanor were not supported by the record as valid, race-neutral reasons. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "P. v. Hicks" on Justia Law

In 1995, Ho Thai Nguyen was involved in a shooting at a café where three men were killed. Nguyen and his associates, members of the "Asian Boys" gang, planned the attack as retaliation against a rival gang. Nguyen entered the café to scout it out before the shooting. He was later convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, with the jury finding he was not one of the shooters but a direct aider and abettor.The trial court denied Nguyen's 2022 petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), which allows for resentencing if a person was convicted under a theory where malice was imputed based solely on participation in a crime. The court found that the jury instructions and verdicts indicated Nguyen was convicted as a direct aider and abettor, requiring a finding of express malice, or intent to kill.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's denial. The court held that the jury instructions required the jury to find Nguyen had the intent to kill to convict him of first-degree murder, whether under a conspiracy or aiding and abetting theory. The court concluded that the jury did not impute malice to Nguyen based solely on his participation in a crime, as required for relief under section 1172.6. Thus, Nguyen failed to make a prima facie case for resentencing. View "P. v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

Harry Malbry, who was convicted in 1991 for committing lewd acts on a child, sought to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. His offenses involved daily sexual abuse of a five-year-old girl over three years. After serving a six-year prison term, he was released and required to register annually as a sex offender. In 2022, Malbry petitioned the trial court to end his registration duty, citing his crime-free record since 1991 as evidence that he no longer posed a danger to the community.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Malbry’s petition, emphasizing that community safety would be significantly enhanced by his continued registration. The court highlighted the persistence and severity of his offenses, his lack of insight into his actions, and his exploitation of a trusting child. The court also noted that Malbry had not sought any professional help or therapy to address his behavior.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court considered several factors, including the nature and facts of the offense, the age of the victim, and Malbry’s lack of participation in a certified sex offender treatment program. The court also noted that legislative changes, such as the enactment of section 288.7, which mandates lifetime registration for similar offenses, underscored the heightened danger posed by Malbry’s conduct. The court concluded that continuing Malbry’s registration as a sex offender significantly enhances community safety, given the severity and persistence of his past offenses and his lack of demonstrated rehabilitation. View "People v. Malbry" on Justia Law

The defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of drugs and bribing an executive officer. During the arrest, the officer observed signs of intoxication and conducted field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed. A preliminary alcohol screening test showed no alcohol, leading the officer to suspect drug use. The defendant admitted to using cannabis and Alprazolam. At the police station, the defendant initially agreed to a blood test but later refused without a warrant. The officer obtained a warrant, and the blood test confirmed the presence of drugs. The defendant was charged and convicted of DUI and bribery.The Superior Court of California, County of Marin, handled the initial trial. The court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 2130, allowing them to infer consciousness of guilt from the defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test. The defendant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to three years of probation and 180 days in jail. The defendant appealed, arguing that the jury instruction was improper because he had a constitutional right to refuse the blood test without a warrant.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the instruction was proper, stating that while the Fourth Amendment prohibits criminal penalties for refusing a blood test without a warrant, it does not prohibit all consequences. The court emphasized that implied consent laws can impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences for refusal. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the instruction did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. View "People v. Bolourchi" on Justia Law