Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In May 2022, Martin Marroquin was arrested and charged with two counts of burglary in Stanislaus County. He posted a $40,000 bail through The North River Insurance Company and Bad Boys Bail Bonds (collectively, Surety) and was released. Marroquin failed to appear in court on July 14, 2022, leading to the forfeiture of his bail and the issuance of a bench warrant. Surety was notified and had 180 days to return Marroquin to custody. Marroquin was later found to be in custody in North Kern State Prison on other charges, with a hold placed on him for the Stanislaus County charges.The Superior Court of Stanislaus County initially tolled the 180-day deadline for Surety to return Marroquin to custody. Surety later moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bail, arguing that Marroquin was in custody on other charges and a hold had been placed on him. The People opposed, arguing that future transportation costs for returning Marroquin to Stanislaus County should be settled first. The trial court denied Surety's motion but extended the tolling period.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that under Penal Code section 1305, the trial court must vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bail if the defendant is arrested outside the county where the case is located. The court found that the trial court erred by conditioning the relief on the resolution of future transportation costs under section 1306. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "P. v. The North River Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Gregory Jerome Shively was convicted by a jury of 57 counts, including conspiracy, burglary, attempted burglary, and robbery, with gang allegations found true for some counts. The trial court sentenced him to 45 years and eight months in prison. Shively's appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende and Anders v. California, indicating no arguable issues for reversal. Shively did not file his own brief. The Court of Appeal reviewed the record and requested supplemental briefing on two issues.The Superior Court of San Diego County initially found Shively guilty on all counts and true on some gang allegations. The court sentenced him to a lengthy prison term, considering various factors, including his prior offenses and aggravating circumstances. Shively's counsel filed a Wende brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, identifying potential issues for supplemental briefing.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found insufficient evidence to support the gang allegations. The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the predicate offenses provided a nonreputational common benefit to the gang. Consequently, the court reversed the true findings on the gang allegations for counts 3 through 35 and 46 through 57. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects and remanded the case to the trial court for full resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "People v. Shively" on Justia Law

In 2011, Robert Duenas was convicted by a jury of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, with enhancements for gang involvement, firearm use, and inflicting great bodily injury. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review in January 2013.In June 2022, Duenas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his sentence. The Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause, leading the trial court to stay the three-year great bodily injury enhancement but leave the other enhancements and the six-year midterm unchanged, reducing his sentence to 20 years. Duenas appealed, arguing that the trial court should have conducted a full resentencing hearing, including considering recent ameliorative legislation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, agreed with Duenas. The court held that once a trial court determines a defendant is entitled to resentencing on habeas review, the original sentence is vacated, and the trial court must conduct a full resentencing hearing. This includes applying new ameliorative legislation retroactively. The court cited the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Padilla, which established that a judgment becomes nonfinal when a sentence is vacated on habeas review, requiring the trial court to reconsider the entire sentence.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, directing the trial court to consider all components of Duenas’s sentence, including the application of recent ameliorative legislation. View "People v. Duenas" on Justia Law

In 2003, the appellant pleaded guilty to the sale or transportation of a controlled substance and was placed on probation for three years. In 2005, after admitting to violating probation, the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to three years in state prison. In 2023, the appellant filed a petition for dismissal of his 2003 conviction under Penal Code section 1203.41, which the People opposed.The trial court denied the petition, reasoning that the appellant did not successfully complete his probationary term and was not originally sentenced to state prison. The court suggested that if the appellant had been originally sentenced to state prison, he might have been eligible for expungement.The appellant appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, arguing that the trial court erred in its interpretation of section 1203.41. The People conceded that the trial court's decision should be reversed. The appellate court agreed, noting that section 1203.41, as amended by Senate Bill No. 731, allows defendants sentenced to state prison to petition for relief, regardless of whether the original sentence was probation. The court found that the statute's plain language does not require an original prison sentence and does not disqualify individuals who violated probation before being sentenced to state prison.The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying the petition and remanded the case for the trial court to exercise its discretion in determining whether the appellant should be granted relief under section 1203.41. The appellate court did not express an opinion on how the trial court should rule on remand. View "People v. Brown" on Justia Law

Javonte Eddie Mathis led a high-speed car chase in 2015, resulting in a crash that killed his 16-year-old cousin, Torry Hines. Mathis fled the scene, leaving Hines in the burning car. Mathis, who was on parole, later pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, hit and run resulting in death, second-degree commercial burglary, and possessing a firearm as a felon. He received a 14-year prison sentence, which included a one-year enhancement for a prior prison term.In 2023, the Contra Costa County Superior Court recalled Mathis's sentence due to a change in the law invalidating the one-year enhancement for non-sexually violent offenses. The court reduced his sentence by one year but otherwise left the original sentence intact, resulting in a total of 13 years and four months in prison. Mathis appealed, arguing that the court should have applied additional sentencing provisions that could further reduce his term.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Mathis waived his claim under section 654 by not raising it at the time of his plea agreement. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to impose the upper term for voluntary manslaughter, citing Mathis's conscious disregard for life, the victim's vulnerability, and Mathis's parole status. Additionally, the court determined that the heightened factfinding requirement for aggravating factors did not apply because Mathis was originally sentenced to the upper term under a scheme that complied with the Sixth Amendment.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the trial court had appropriately applied the relevant sentencing rules and changes in the law. View "People v. Mathis" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the defendants, Andre Dimitri Richee and Lee Albert Mooring, were charged with the murder of Daniel Gonzalez and the attempted murders of A.P. and D.M. The incident occurred in September 2020, when a white sedan with tinted windows approached a group of people, including the victims, in an alley. After a brief exchange, the car returned, and shots were fired from the vehicle, resulting in Gonzalez's death and injuries to A.P. and D.M. The prosecution presented evidence, including witness identifications, surveillance footage, and statements made by the defendants, to establish their involvement in the crime.The Superior Court of Riverside County found the defendants guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstances and two counts of attempted murder. The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed by discharging a firearm from a vehicle. The court sentenced both defendants to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus additional prison terms. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court committed instructional errors and that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had indeed committed instructional errors by instructing the jury on invalid theories of murder and attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and by failing to instruct on the elements of the special circumstance charge. The appellate court concluded that these errors undermined the defendants' rights to a fair trial.As a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the defendants' convictions for attempted murder but affirmed their convictions for murder and the special circumstance findings. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, including the possibility of retrial for the attempted murder charges and resentencing. The appellate court also directed the trial court to impose any remaining victim restitution amount jointly and severally upon resentencing. View "People v. Richee" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jayden Demarko McDaniel, a Black individual, was charged with multiple felonies, including attempted first-degree murder and gang-related offenses. McDaniel alleged that he was disparately charged with gang enhancements due to his race, in violation of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA). He sought discovery of evidence from the prosecution to support his claim, arguing that statistical evidence indicated a racial disparity in the application of gang enhancements in San Mateo County.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied McDaniel's motion for discovery, concluding that he failed to demonstrate "good cause" as required by the RJA. The court found that McDaniel's statistical evidence lacked context and did not provide specific facts about his case or other similar cases involving non-Black defendants. McDaniel then filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, which was initially denied without prejudice. He subsequently refiled his petition, which was again denied by the superior court.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that McDaniel had met the low threshold for demonstrating good cause for discovery under the RJA. The court held that McDaniel's county-specific statistical evidence, supported by an expert declaration, presented a plausible factual foundation for his claim of racial bias in charging decisions. The court emphasized that the RJA's discovery standard is intended to be broad and flexible, allowing for various types of evidence, including statistical data, to support a claim of racial disparity.The Court of Appeal vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for a new hearing to reconsider McDaniel's discovery motion, directing the trial court to weigh the potential probative value of the requested information against the burdens of gathering it. View "McDaniel v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Brandon Horton was convicted of stalking and making criminal threats against Seiko H. He was acquitted of making criminal threats against Seiko’s father, John H. At sentencing, the trial court issued a 10-year protective order prohibiting Horton from contacting both Seiko and John, and an order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons. Horton appealed, challenging the inclusion of John in the protective order and the prohibition on possessing deadly or dangerous weapons.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found Horton guilty of making criminal threats against Seiko and stalking her, with the jury finding true several aggravating factors. Horton was acquitted of making criminal threats against John. The trial court sentenced Horton to five years and eight months in state prison, with credit for time served, and issued the protective orders in question.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not err in including John in the protective order, as there was sufficient evidence that Horton committed or attempted to commit harm against John. However, the court found that the trial court erred in extending the weapons prohibition beyond firearms to any deadly or dangerous weapon. The appellate court modified the judgment to strike the order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons, while affirming the judgment as modified. The trial court was directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections. View "P. v. Horton" on Justia Law

The case involves Robert Hinojos, who was convicted of three counts under the gang conspiracy statute, Penal Code section 182.5, related to an attack on a prison inmate by individuals associated with the Mexican Mafia. The underlying offenses were assault by a life prisoner, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. Hinojos appealed, raising several issues, including the application of section 654 to stay two of his convictions, the gang enhancement, the application of the Three Strikes law, the sufficiency of evidence, and jury instructions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County convicted Hinojos and sentenced him to 50 years to life plus additional terms for the gang enhancement. The court imposed sentences on all three counts, which Hinojos argued should be stayed under section 654. He also contended that the gang enhancement should not apply, the Three Strikes law was improperly applied to one count, and the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Additionally, he challenged the jury instructions on the pattern of criminal gang activity and the natural and probable consequences doctrine.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court agreed that two of Hinojos's three convictions must be stayed under section 654 but rejected the rest of his challenges. The court held that the gang enhancement punishes aspects of criminal conduct beyond those in the gang conspiracy statute, and therefore section 654 does not bar its imposition. The court also found that allegations of Three Strikes sentencing as to some counts are sufficient to allege sentencing as to all eligible counts. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the convictions, and any error in not setting aside the indictment was harmless. The court concluded that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the pattern of criminal gang activity and the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury did not convict Hinojos of multiple conspiracies but rather a single conspiracy charged in three ways. The convictions were affirmed, and the case was remanded for the trial court to stay execution of the sentence on two of the three counts. View "P. v. Hinojos" on Justia Law

Andrew Christian Temple was found not guilty of first-degree murder but guilty of second-degree murder. The jury determined that Temple used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. Temple was sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. He appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on considering his mental disorders in determining imperfect self-defense, erred in using CALCRIM No. 225 instead of CALCRIM No. 224, and wrongly denied his motion for a trial continuance to locate a witness.The Superior Court of Riverside initially handled the case, where Temple was convicted. Temple's defense requested jury instructions on imperfect self-defense and consideration of mental disorders, which the court provided. However, Temple contended these instructions were insufficient as they did not explicitly allow the jury to consider his mental disorders in assessing imperfect self-defense. Additionally, Temple's request for a trial continuance to locate a witness was denied by the trial court, which found no good cause for the delay.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that any instructional error regarding imperfect self-defense was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence that Temple used excessive force. The court also found no error in using CALCRIM No. 225, as the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence only for Temple's mental state. Lastly, the court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, as there was no guarantee the witness could be located within a reasonable time. The judgment was affirmed. View "P. v. Temple" on Justia Law