Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 1991, an individual was convicted of the rape and murder of a woman in San Diego County. The crime involved the perpetrator bludgeoning the victim with a metal steering wheel lock, restraining and sexually assaulting her for several hours, and ultimately suffocating her before burying her body in the desert. The perpetrator confessed to the crimes and entered a plea agreement, resulting in a sentence of six years for rape and 25 years to life for first-degree premeditated murder. Over the years, state forensic psychologists consistently diagnosed the individual with sexual sadism disorder and a personality disorder with narcissistic features.After serving decades in prison, the Board of Parole Hearings found the individual suitable for parole in 2019 and again in 2022. On both occasions, the Governor of California exercised his authority to independently review and reverse the Board’s decision, citing concerns about the individual’s insight into the crimes and risk to public safety. The San Diego County Superior Court denied the individual’s petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the Governor’s 2022 reversal.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the habeas petition. Applying the highly deferential “some evidence” standard, the court examined whether there was a rational nexus between the evidence and the Governor’s determination of current dangerousness. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Governor’s conclusion that the individual lacked sufficient insight into the connection between his sexual disorder and violent conduct, continued to minimize his culpability, and demonstrated lapses in judgment and self-control in recent prison incidents. The court held that these factors, combined with the aggravated nature of the original crimes, provided a sufficient basis for the Governor’s decision. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied. View "In re Rogowski" on Justia Law

Brandon Duane Wagstaff was convicted by a jury of felony false imprisonment and related offenses stemming from a domestic violence incident. The trial court sentenced him to 16 months in prison. Wagstaff, who is Black, claimed that the trial court violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA) during various stages of the proceedings. However, his trial counsel did not object to these statements under the RJA, leading to the forfeiture of these claims on appeal. Wagstaff also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a specific statement made by the trial court at sentencing, but the appellate court found this claim to be without merit.In the lower court, the prosecution charged Wagstaff with five counts, including felony false imprisonment, attempted second-degree robbery, contempt of court, threatening to commit a crime, and battery upon a person in a dating relationship. The jury found him guilty on four counts but acquitted him of attempted robbery. Wagstaff admitted to a prior conviction, and the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of nine years and four months, including a term from a separate case.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Wagstaff's claims under the RJA were forfeited due to the lack of objections by his trial counsel. The court also concluded that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on misdemeanor false imprisonment as a lesser included offense was not erroneous because there was no substantial evidence to support such an instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in Wagstaff's claims. View "P. v. Wagstaff" on Justia Law

In 1996, Daniel Whalen was convicted of first-degree murder during a robbery and received a death sentence. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Supreme Court in 2013, and his first state habeas corpus petition was denied in 2014. Whalen filed a second habeas corpus petition in 2016, raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and constitutional challenges to the death penalty. This petition was transferred to the Stanislaus Superior Court, which denied it in 2022, finding the claims were successive and could have been raised earlier.Whalen appealed the denial and requested a certificate of appealability from the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The appellate court initially denied the request, but the California Supreme Court directed it to reconsider whether the superior court had properly ruled the petition as successive under Proposition 66 and its implementing statutes. Upon remand, the superior court reaffirmed its decision that the claims were successive and granted a certificate of appealability without specifying the claims.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found the certificate of appealability fatally defective because it did not indicate which claims were substantial, as required by law. The court dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the superior court to either deny the certificate of appealability or issue a new one that complies with the statutory requirements. The appellate court also upheld the constitutionality of section 1509, subdivision (d), which limits successive habeas corpus petitions to claims of actual innocence or ineligibility for the death sentence. View "In re Whalen" on Justia Law

In 1996, Jesse Banda Ortega, then 17 years old, was involved in a gang-related shooting in Santa Ana, California, resulting in one death and one injury. Ortega was convicted of one count of murder and three counts of attempted murder, with firearm enhancements. He was sentenced to 25 years to life, plus 17 years, making him eligible for parole after 42 years.Ortega filed a petition for recall and resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) in 2023, arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole (LWOP) and that he should be eligible for relief under equal protection principles. The Superior Court of Orange County denied his petition, stating that Ortega's sentence included a meaningful opportunity for release during his 25th year of incarceration, thus it was neither LWOP nor its functional equivalent.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that Ortega's sentence, modified by legislative changes requiring youth offender parole hearings, provided a meaningful opportunity for release after 25 years. Therefore, Ortega was not serving a sentence equivalent to LWOP. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Ortega's petition, concluding that his constitutional claim was moot due to the legislative changes ensuring parole eligibility. The court also found that Ortega's equal protection argument was moot, as his current sentence did not violate constitutional principles. View "P. v. Ortega" on Justia Law

Defendant Ronald Deshunn Lewis was charged with two counts of assault and alleged probation violations. He was found mentally incompetent to stand trial and committed to the California Department of State Hospitals (Department), which was authorized to administer antipsychotic medication involuntarily. Lewis appealed, arguing that his due process and equal protection rights were violated because the trial court issued the involuntary medication order without an evidentiary hearing.The Contra Costa County District Attorney initially charged Lewis with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. The trial court suspended criminal proceedings due to doubts about his mental competence and appointed psychologists to evaluate him. Based on their reports, the court found him incompetent and committed him to the Department. After a month, the Department certified that Lewis had regained competence, and he pled no contest to the assault charge, receiving probation. However, a subsequent probation violation led to new charges and another suspension of proceedings due to doubts about his competence. A psychologist's report again found him incompetent, and the court committed him to the Department, authorizing involuntary medication.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1370(a)(2)(B) of the Penal Code does not require an evidentiary hearing before authorizing involuntary medication. The court found that the trial court's procedures, which included considering written reports from mental health experts and allowing for argument by counsel, provided sufficient due process. The court also held that the different procedural requirements for inmates and other civil committees did not violate equal protection, as there were rational bases for the distinctions. The court affirmed the trial court's order authorizing involuntary medication. View "P. v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Gregory Wilson was convicted by a jury of multiple charges, including human trafficking of a minor by force or fear, human trafficking to commit another crime, kidnapping, and criminal threats. He was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of 31 years and eight months, followed by an indeterminate term of 30 years to life. Wilson appealed, arguing that his defense counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the prosecutor's use of the term "gorilla pimp" during closing arguments, which he claimed violated the Racial Justice Act (RJA).The trial court had found Wilson guilty based on substantial evidence, including testimonies from victims B.W., K.W., and B.C., who described being forced into prostitution through violence and threats. The jury found Wilson not guilty of rape and forcible oral copulation but convicted him on other charges. The trial court sentenced him accordingly.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that defense counsel was not ineffective as a matter of law for failing to object to the prosecutor's use of the term "gorilla pimp." The court reasoned that the term is a recognized term of art in the sex trafficking subculture, describing a pimp who uses force and violence. The court also noted that the issue of ineffective counsel should be resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding, where defense counsel can explain their conduct.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial evidence supporting Wilson's convictions for human trafficking and kidnapping. The court also rejected Wilson's claims regarding sentencing, including the argument that the trial court abused its discretion and violated section 654's prohibition against multiple punishments. View "People v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of threatening a police officer via social media while on mandatory supervision. As a condition of his postrelease community supervision, the trial court prohibited him from creating or using social media accounts and from accessing social media websites. The defendant challenged this condition as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.The Superior Court of Sacramento County initially sentenced the defendant to a split sentence for various offenses, including carrying a concealed weapon and perjury. While on mandatory supervision, the defendant was convicted of making a criminal threat using his Facebook account. The trial court executed the previously imposed sentence and added a consecutive sentence for the new conviction. On appeal, the Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The trial court then imposed a revised sentence, and the defendant was released on postrelease supervision with the challenged social media condition.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the social media prohibition was not unconstitutionally vague, as it clearly defined the prohibited conduct. The court also found that the condition was not overbroad, as it was closely related to the defendant's use of social media to commit the crime. The court concluded that the prohibition was a reasonable measure to protect the state's interest in the defendant's reformation and rehabilitation. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. View "People v. Nixon" on Justia Law

In 1991, Jesus Izaguirre Nino pleaded guilty to the second-degree murder of Fernando Avalos and admitted to using a firearm during the crime. Nino later petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, which the superior court denied at the prima facie review stage, citing preliminary hearing testimony that indicated Nino was the actual killer. The Supreme Court's decision in People v. Patton, which allows preliminary hearing testimony to be considered at the prima facie review stage, was issued while Nino's appeal was pending. The preliminary hearing testimony showed Nino shot and killed Fernando alone.The superior court denied Nino's petition, concluding he was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 because he was the actual killer. Nino appealed, arguing that he could have been convicted of second-degree felony murder based on the now-invalid theory of imputed malice, as he intended only to scare Fernando, not kill him.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court held that an actual killer could still be eligible for relief under section 1172.6 if the conviction was based on the now-invalid theory of second-degree felony murder. The court found that the record did not conclusively establish that Nino could not have been convicted of second-degree felony murder based on imputed malice. Therefore, the court reversed the superior court's order denying Nino's petition for resentencing and remanded the case with directions for the superior court to issue an order to show cause and set an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6, subdivision (d). View "People v. Nino" on Justia Law

In 2012, Daniel Tomas Grajeda was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury also found true the gang and firearm allegations, and the trial court found true that Grajeda had served four prior prison terms. He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 59 years to life. In 2024, during a resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75, Grajeda appeared remotely and requested a postponement to speak with his attorney, which the court denied. The court resentenced him to 50 years to life. Grajeda argued that the court abused its discretion by denying his request to continue the hearing and by not considering striking the firearm enhancement. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially sentenced Grajeda to 62 years to life, which was later reduced to 59 years to life on direct appeal. The court held a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 after the Legislature invalidated certain prior prison term enhancements. Grajeda's counsel requested the court to strike the four prior prison term enhancements and the two-year gang enhancement, but did not request to strike the firearm enhancement. The court denied Grajeda's request to postpone the hearing to consult with his attorney and proceeded with the resentencing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Grajeda was entitled to a full resentencing and had a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the resentencing hearing. The court found that the superior court violated this right by refusing to grant a short continuance or a brief break to allow Grajeda to speak with his attorney. The appellate court reversed the judgment and directed the superior court to allow Grajeda to consult with his attorney and hold another resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 and any other applicable ameliorative legislation. View "People v. Grajeda" on Justia Law

Robert Schneider, charged with murder, filed a discovery motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court and Brady v. Maryland, seeking Brady information from the confidential personnel records of six deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The trial court found good cause for an in camera review and determined that four of the six deputies' files contained Brady material. However, the court only ordered the disclosure of the names, addresses, and phone numbers of individuals who had witnessed or complained about the conduct, not the Brady material itself.Schneider petitioned for a writ of mandate, challenging the limited disclosure. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court should have ordered LASD to disclose all Brady material in the four deputies’ personnel files, including documents and any audio-video materials.The Court of Appeal held that while the Pitchess procedures must be followed to obtain Brady information in officers’ confidential personnel files, the limitations on disclosure under Pitchess do not apply to Brady material. The court emphasized that Brady material must be fully disclosed, including any relevant complaints, reports, or audio-visual evidence, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial. The petition was granted, directing the trial court to vacate its previous order and conduct a further in camera review to identify and produce all Brady material to Schneider’s counsel. View "Schneider v. Superior Court" on Justia Law