Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2008-2010, Shah engaged in fraudulent transactions involving three luxury condominiums owned by Hwang, ultimately using the property to obtain over $2 million in loans. Shah was convicted of multiple crimes. Enhancement allegations, including taking a property valued over $3.2 million and special findings, including a pattern of white-collar crime. were found true. A 2015 restitution order remains unpaid. Hwang filed a civil action against Shah and, in 2018, secured a civil judgment—over $3.8 million.In 2021, the trial court levied property under Penal Code 186.11, the “Freeze and Seize” law, which is intended to prevent a defendant from disposing of assets pending trial, and then use the assets to pay restitution after conviction. Shah argued that a trial court must seize any properties under section 186.11 no later than the sentencing hearing.The court of appeal affirmed. Shah sought to import time limitations into the statute and ignored the legislative purpose of section 186.11 and California’s over-arching statutory framework for restitution in criminal cases. California recognizes restitution for crime victims as a constitutional right. The court’s authority does not change even after the Courts of Appeal decide a criminal case. The lack of a disposition formally remanding Shah’s original appeal for further proceedings was no bar to the trial court’s levying order. View "People v. Shah" on Justia Law

Ortiz, born in 1960, was charged with 18 sex crimes committed against several minors in 2004-2018. In 2022, the jury found Ortiz guilty on multiple counts and found true the multiple-victim enhancement allegation. Ortiz was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 225 years to life.The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred by overruling Ortiz’s Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 objection to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge against a Black prospective juror (S.H.). The record includes exchanges demonstrating S.H.’s inability to answer or understand questions, failure to answer questions, confusion, reluctance, timidity, and evasiveness. The trial court’s confirmation finding is supported by substantial evidence and the statutory explanation requirement was fulfilled. There was no violation of Ortiz’s constitutional rights. The court upheld the admission of testimony from a defense character witness about her daughter’s midtrial disclosure of molestation by Ortiz as probative of her opinion of Ortiz’s character and properly provided context for a change in her opinion. The CALCRIM 1193 jury instruction that expert testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome is not evidence that the defendant committed any crimes, was proper. View "People v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Joshua Allen appealed his convictions for possessing a controlled substance while armed with a firearm and possessing an unregistered and loaded firearm while in a vehicle. He argued on appeal that the laws violate dthe Second Amendment as interpreted by N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __ [142 S.Ct. 2111] (2022). The Court of Appeal rejected the constitutional challenges, and published its analysis concerning possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm to confirm that California v. Gonzalez, 75 Cal.App.5th 907, 912-916 (2022) remained good law. Nevertheless, the Court vacated Allen’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because the Court agreed with the parties that Allen’s sentence violated Penal Code section 654. View "California v. Allen" on Justia Law

In the middle of the global COVID-19 pandemic, a jury convicted Dominic Molina of committing various sexual crimes against his girlfriend’s young daughter. Molina contended that COVID-19 safety protocols implemented at trial, particularly the use of masks and socially distanced seating arrangements, deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial, and further that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by asking the trial court to disclose to prospective jurors that he was in custody. The Court of Appeal found neither argument had any merit, and affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Molina" on Justia Law

In October 2010, Quang Van Quan was convicted by jury on three counts of first degree murder, and found true two felony murder special circumstance allegations that the murders took place during the commission of a burglary, robbery, or attempted robbery. Quan petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6) based on changes made by the Legislature to limit accomplice liability under the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Quan’s petition and found Quan was ineligible for resentencing. In his briefing, Quan raised numerous claims of error by the trial court. The Court of Appeal addressed none because the Court found Quan was correct that his constitutional and statutory rights to be personally present at the hearing were violated, and the Court agreed the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court therefore reversed the trial court’s order denying his resentencing petition and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing. View "California v. Quan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant, The Riverside County District Attorney, appealed a trial court’s dismissal of three felony charges against defendant-respondent Danny Manzo due to evidence lost during the prosecution’s five-year delay in prosecuting the case after filing charges against defendant. Because there was no evidence that the loss of evidence prejudiced defendant, the Court reversed the order dismissing the complaint. View "California v. Manzo" on Justia Law

In 2016, Coddington was charged with assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury and making a criminal threat, with special allegations of great bodily injury and allegations: that Coddington previously had been convicted of a serious felony, had a prior strike conviction, and had served three prior prison terms. Coddington pleaded guilty to the assault with the special allegation of great bodily injury, admitting the allegations, including one prison prior. The court sentenced Coddington to 13 years: the lower term of two years for the assault, doubled because of the prior strike, plus three years for great bodily injury, plus five years for the serious felony allegation, plus one year for the prison prior.In 2022, Coddington moved to be resentenced, based on the intervening elimination of sentence enhancements for prison priors unless the prior term was for a sexually violent offense, Penal Code 1172.75(a). The court reduced Coddington’s sentence to 12 years, the entire relief Coddington had requested. On appeal, Coddington first argued that he was entitled to further reductions under Senate Bill 1393, giving courts discretion to dismiss or strike a prior serious felony allegation, and Senate Bill 81, which specifies factors that the court must consider when deciding whether to strike enhancements. The court of appeal remanded for a full resentencing, noting that if the court indicates that it will further reduce Coddington’s sentence, the prosecution may withdraw its assent to the plea agreement. View "People v. Coddington" on Justia Law

The San Bernardino County District Attorney (the District Attorney) appealed a trial court order granting Karla Coca’s petition under Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate a misdemeanor conviction. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Coca failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that “the conviction . . . being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization.” The Court accordingly reversed the order. View "California v. Coca" on Justia Law

Defendant Jose Saavedra appealed an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now Pen. Code, § 1172.6). He contended he made a prima facie claim for relief and, therefore, the trial court erred by not issuing an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed because the factual basis for Saavedra’s guilty plea established as a matter of law that Saavedra was ineligible for relief. View "California v. Saavedra" on Justia Law

The Ventura County District Attorney charged Defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm, ammunition and a machine gun. As to each charge, it was alleged that Defendant suffered a 2021 prior strike conviction for possessing a firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Assembly Bill No. 333 amended section 186.22 to require evidence that the firearm possession provides more than a reputational benefit to the street gang. Because no such evidence supported Defendant’s prior conviction, the trial court concluded that it no longer qualified as a strike. Defendant pleaded no contest to the three charges against him and was sentenced to two years in state prison. The district attorney appealed.   The Second Appellate District vacated the judgment and reversed the order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the strike allegations. The court explained that when it enacted Assembly Bill No. 333, the Legislature found that gang enhancements have not been shown to reduce crime or violence. The Legislature also found that these enhancements have been applied inconsistently and disproportionately against people of color. They have additionally been applied to minor crimes and have been used to “legitimize severe punishment.” However, the court explained that while these are valid concerns, it is not the province of the court to apply legislative concerns to a statutory scheme the Legislature has left unchanged. View "P. v. Aguirre" on Justia Law