Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2022, the Sacramento County District Attorney charged defendant Stephanie Miller with carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle under her control. Penal Code section 25400(a)(1) did not apply to individuals, unlike Miller, who were licensed to carry concealed firearms under California law. Later that year, Miller filed a demurrer asserting her concealed firearm charge was unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022) which held the “proper cause” requirement in New York’s public carry licensing regime violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court sustained Miller’s demurrer and dismissed the charge against her. On appeal, the State argued Miller lacked standing to raise her constitutional challenge because she never attempted to apply for a license and could not show she would satisfy any valid conditions California places on receiving one. The State argued Bruen only invalidated the “good cause” requirement in California’s firearm licensing statutes and they remained otherwise constitutional pursuant to the severability doctrine. The State further argued the trial court’s interpretation of Bruen was overly broad and the criminal charge of having a concealed firearm under section 25400 remained valid post-Bruen. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that, to the extent Miller had standing, her assertions were ultimately unavailing because section 25400 did not violate the Second Amendment regardless of the constitutionality of California’s firearm licensing statutes. The Court therefore reversed the superior court’s order sustaining Miller’s demurrer and dismissing the charge against her. View "California v. Miller" on Justia Law

North River Insurance Company and its bail agent (collectively, North River) asked for its bail money back. The court said no: the prosecution had not decided whether to extradite the fugitive from Mexico. North River sought a continuance, to give the prosecution enough time to decide. The court refused that as well. Because prosecutors would not decide, and because prosecutors would not agree to a delay to allow themselves to decide, North River had to forfeit its bail money, said the trial court.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court explained that where the bail company has complied with its obligations, government prosecutors should not be able to use their own indecision to allow the government to keep bail money. The bond is a contract between the bail company and the government. Section 1305 governs that contract. The bail company performed its end of the bargain. The trial court vitiated the bargain by allowing the government to escape all obligations simply by proclaiming irresolution. View "P. v. The North River Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendants were identified as suspects of murder after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of his murder. After their motions to quash and suppress evidence were denied, Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder; and co-Defendant pleaded no contest to second-degree murder. On appeal, Defendants contend the trial court erred in denying their motion to suppress, arguing the geofence warrant violated their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and did not comply with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (CalECPA).   The Second Appellate District explained that although the geofence warrant satisfied the requirements of CalECPA, the court agrees it lacked the particularity required by the Fourth Amendment and was impermissibly overbroad. Nonetheless, the court affirmed the convictions under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule established by United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 (Leon). The court explained that given the dearth of authority directly on point and the novelty of the particular surveillance technique at issue, the officers were not objectively unreasonable in believing the warrant was valid, even if the issue, upon close legal examination, is not a particularly close one. View "P. v. Meza" on Justia Law

Petitioner applied to the trial court in March 2022 to change his name. On the ground that Petitioner has “outstanding warrant(s),” the trial court denied Harris’s petition.   The Second Appellate District affirmed because there was no abuse of discretion. The court explained that by statute, it was proper for the trial court to check law enforcement records when considering Petitioner’s petition to change his name. The California Legislature has directed courts to use the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) to determine whether a name change applicant must register as a sex offender. View "In re Harris" on Justia Law

In People v. Bartholomew (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 775, 778, the Second Appellate District Court’s majority opinion acknowledged, “‘No provision of section 17, subdivision (b), authorizes the superior court judge to [determine a wobbler to be a misdemeanor] prior to judgment or a grant of probation.’” But the majority opinion held that “the People have no authority to appeal” the superior court’s pretrial order reducing a felony wobbler to a misdemeanor. The majority rejected the People’s claim that section 1238, subdivision (a)(6) authorizes such an appeal. The People did not raise the issue of whether an appeal is authorized under section 1238, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(8).   The Second Appellate District disapproved of the holding in Bartholomew. Here, the People petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its post-preliminary hearing, pretrial order reducing a felony wobbler to a misdemeanor. The People also filed an appeal. Because the superior court’s order is both unauthorized and appealable, the court issued the requested writ. The court directed the Superior Court of Ventura County to vacate its order reducing the felony wobbler to a misdemeanor and to reinstate the felony charge. View "P. v. Super. Ct. (Mitchell)" on Justia Law

After the Court of Appeal reversed the summary denial of her request for resentencing, Petitioner Elvira Torres sought on remand to peremptorily challenge the judge who had originally denied her request for resentencing, when he was again assigned to hear the request. Petitioner’s challenge was essentially denied as untimely, and she asked the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate or prohibition. The Court found remand for further resentencing proceedings held pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 did not constitute remand for a “new trial” as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6(a)(2); thus, petitioner’s challenge to the trial judge pursuant to that section was properly denied as untimely. View "Torres v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Petitioner Gregory Vance, Jr., his girlfriend (and codefendant) Katherine Schumann, and the victim were operating a fraudulent check-cashing scheme. Vance and Schumann suspected the victim of taking more than his share of the proceeds. Armed with knives, they went to the victim’s home. By the time they left, the victim had been fatally stabbed. According to the prosecution’s evidence, it was Vance who stabbed the victim; according to petitioner, it was Schumann. Vance was convicted of (among other things) first degree murder, on a felony murder theory, and sentenced to 56 years to life in prison. The trial court denied Vance’s petition under Penal Code section 1172.61 to vacate his murder conviction. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) considering only the facts as stated in the Court of Appeal’s opinion in Vance’s direct appeal, rather than the facts as shown by the record of conviction; and (2) applying an erroneously low burden of proof. After review, the Court of Appeal found Vance’s counsel forfeited the trial court’s erroneous reliance on the Court’s prior opinion by failing to object, and that in the absence of any objection, that prior opinion constituted substantial evidence. The Court also held that, in a section 1172.6 proceeding, the trial court’s erroneous application of an unduly low burden of proof was not reversible per se. “Rather, the appellant has the burden of showing that it is reasonably probable that, in the absence of the error, he or she would have enjoyed a more favorable outcome. As Vance has not even tried to meet this burden, we cannot say the error was prejudicial.” View "California v. Vance" on Justia Law

Based on events that occurred in 1991, when he was a minor, Vaesau was convicted of three counts of attempted premeditated murder and three counts of assault with a firearm, all six of which were accompanied by allegations of personal use of a firearm and personal infliction of great bodily injury, plus a separate. assault The court sentenced him to two consecutive life terms, plus 14 years.Thirty years later, San Francisco’s then-District Attorney, Boudin, filed a request to resentence Vaesau under former Penal Code section 1170.03, now 1172.1, which authorizes a trial court, “at any time upon the recommendation of ... the district attorney,” to recall the sentence and resentence a defendant convicted of a felony. Weeks later, Boudin was recalled, and the new District Attorney moved to withdraw the request without offering a substantive reason for doing so. After briefing and a hearing, the trial court granted the motion without ruling on the merits. The court of appeal vacated. A trial court has discretion but is not required, to terminate a section 1172.1 proceeding when a district attorney identifies a legitimate basis for withdrawing the resentencing request and moves to withdraw before the court rules on the merits. Here, the district attorney here did not offer any such reason. View "People v. Vaesau" on Justia Law

In 2009, A.B., 13 years old, pled no contest to charges and was declared a ward of the juvenile court. The juvenile court successfully terminated his probation and wardship in 2014. Eight years later, A.B. and the County Probation Department filed an unopposed petition to have his juvenile court and public agency records sealed, Welfare and Institutions Code section 781. Since his juvenile adjudication, A.B. had not sustained any criminal convictions, had married and had a child, and had remained steadily employed.The court granted the petition, finding that A.B. had been rehabilitated and that A.B.’s offenses were not listed in section 707(b). In addition to sealing its own records, the court ordered the five government agencies listed in the petition to seal and ultimately destroy any of A.B.’s juvenile records in their custody. Three months later, A.B. discovered that several public agencies not subject to the original sealing order had retained and could access his juvenile records. A.B. petitioned to seal these additional records, again unopposed. The juvenile court concluded that it lacked the authority to seal additional records after the initial sealing order, acknowledging that, had the additional agencies been listed in A.B.’s first petition, they would have been ordered to seal their records. The court of appeal reversed. Section 781.1 allows a court to grant a petition to seal documents not addressed in an earlier petition. View "In re A.B." on Justia Law

The San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a petition against defendant-appellant J.P. alleging he committed second degree robbery, assault with a firearm and carrying a loaded firearm not registered to him in a vehicle. A court found all three allegations true and sustained the petition. On appeal, J.P. argued Welfare and Institutions Code section 875 precluded commitment to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF) unless the juvenile’s most recent offense was listed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b), and J.P.’s most recent offense, the gun possession, was not such an offense. The State moved to dismiss the gun possession offense, to which J.P. objected, arguing that the court only had the power to strike the entre petition, not any single allegation. The court granted the State’s motion, dismissed the gun offense, and committed J.P. to an SYTF. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "In re J.P." on Justia Law