Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2014, Michael Andrew Cota was charged with four counts of sexual abuse, including committing a lewd act upon a child under 14. The complaint also included allegations of a prior strike conviction, a prior serious felony conviction, a prior prison term for a violent felony, and three prior prison terms under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). In 2015, Cota entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the lewd act charge and admitting the prior convictions and prison terms. In return, other charges were dismissed, and he was sentenced to 24 years in prison, with the punishment for two of the prison priors being struck.The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified Cota as eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75, which invalidates certain prison priors. However, the trial court denied resentencing in August 2022, reasoning that Cota was not eligible because the punishment for the prison priors was struck. Cota appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court erred in its interpretation of section 1172.75.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence Cota despite CDCR's delayed notification. The court determined that CDCR's notification obligation is directory, not mandatory or jurisdictional. The court also held that section 1172.75 requires resentencing even if the punishment for prison priors was struck, following the precedent set by People v. Espino. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a full resentencing consistent with section 1172.75 and current law. View "People v. Cota" on Justia Law

Kristopher Birtcher, experiencing a mental health crisis, was reported to law enforcement by a Hobby Lobby manager. Birtcher, unarmed and not threatening anyone, was detained by sheriff’s deputies. During the detention, Birtcher attempted to flee but was subdued by multiple deputies who restrained him in a prone position, applying bodyweight pressure to his back. Despite Birtcher’s pleas that he could not breathe, the deputies maintained the restraint, and Birtcher eventually stopped moving and died from asphyxiation and sudden cardiac arrest.In the Superior Court of San Diego County, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no triable issues of material fact regarding the excessive force claim. The court concluded that the deputies’ actions were in accordance with their training and that Birtcher’s restraint was proper. The court also ruled that plaintiff failed to establish a legal basis for the negligent training claim against Sheriff William D. Gore.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that there were indeed triable issues of material fact regarding the excessive force used by the deputies. The appellate court found that the evidence, including expert testimony, suggested that the deputies’ use of bodyweight pressure on Birtcher while he was restrained in a prone position could be considered excessive force. The court also held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the negligent training claim against Sheriff Gore, as there was a statutory basis for the claim and evidence suggesting his involvement in the training policies.The appellate court reversed the judgment in favor of all defendants and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "A.B. v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life. During pretrial proceedings, his defense counsel raised doubts about his competency to stand trial, leading the trial court to suspend criminal proceedings and appoint a psychologist for evaluation. The psychologist observed the defendant's extremely low intelligence, confusion during police interviews and the competency evaluation, and scores below the cutoff on a test designed to assess incompetence due to intellectual disability. Despite these observations, the psychologist concluded that the defendant was competent to stand trial. The trial court found the defendant competent based on the psychologist's report, and criminal proceedings resumed.The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court mishandled the procedures for determining his competency. He contended that there was sufficient evidence of intellectual disability to trigger the trial court's duty to appoint the director of the regional center for the developmentally disabled, or the director’s designee, to examine him. The appellate court agreed, concluding that the trial court was presented with evidence raising sufficient doubt that the defendant was intellectually disabled and was thus obligated to appoint the regional center director or their designee for evaluation. The court's failure to do so was deemed prejudicial error.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred by not appointing the regional center director or their designee to evaluate the defendant for developmental disability. The appellate court found that the psychologist's report, which indicated the defendant's extremely low IQ and confusion, raised sufficient doubt about his intellectual disability. The court concluded that the trial court's failure to appoint the regional center director deprived the defendant of a fair competency trial. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial. View "People v. Lara" on Justia Law

Perrie Thompson was sentenced to 50 years to life for a homicide he committed at age 17. Fifteen years later, he petitioned for relief under Penal Code section 1170(d), which allows juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole to seek resentencing. Thompson argued that his sentence was effectively life without parole and cited cases like People v. Contreras and People v. Heard to support his claim. He presented evidence of his rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated. The trial court denied his petition, stating that his sentence was not equivalent to life without parole since he would be eligible for parole within his life expectancy.Thompson appealed the decision. The Attorney General initially opposed the appeal but later conceded that a 50-years-to-life sentence is functionally equivalent to life without parole and that denying relief to such offenders violates equal protection. However, the court independently reviewed the merits of Thompson's arguments.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order. The court held that Thompson's 50-years-to-life sentence is not the functional equivalent of life without parole for equal protection purposes. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind section 1170(d) was to address the most severe punishments, specifically life without parole, and that the Legislature could rationally distinguish between life without parole and lengthy term-of-years sentences. The court concluded that Thompson failed to demonstrate that the exclusion of his sentence from section 1170(d) relief was irrational or unconstitutional. View "People v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In 2000, Johnny Lawrence Brinson was convicted of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder, with firearm use and discharge, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 39 years to life in prison. In 2024, Brinson filed multiple requests for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, citing amendments to the Penal Code and Assembly Bill No. 600. The trial court declined to take any action on these requests.Previously, the trial court had affirmed Brinson's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. In 2024, Brinson filed his first request for recall and resentencing, which the court denied. He subsequently filed two more requests, both of which the court also declined to act upon, issuing orders stating no action would be taken pursuant to section 1172.1, subdivision (c). Brinson appealed the court's decision not to act on his requests.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court's decision not to take action on Brinson's request for recall and resentencing is not an appealable order. The court emphasized that under section 1172.1, subdivision (c), a defendant is not entitled to file a petition for resentencing, and the court is not required to respond to such a request. The appellate court agreed with existing case law that a trial court's decision not to act on a defendant-initiated request for recall and resentencing does not affect the defendant's substantial rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "People v. Brinson" on Justia Law

David Valle, an inmate at the California Men’s Colony, was found in possession of a 14-inch by 1-inch sharpened plastic fragment, metal fragments from a shower valve cover, and a folded metal sheet during a cell search. The plastic fragment was described as a weapon resembling a spear or knife. Valle admitted to having the items but claimed he could not remember why.Valle was convicted by a jury of possessing a sharp instrument in prison under Penal Code section 4502. The trial court sentenced him as a third-strike offender to 25 years to life in prison. Valle appealed, arguing that section 4502 is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define "sharp instrument."The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed Valle's constitutional challenge de novo and rejected it. The court held that section 4502 is not unconstitutionally vague, either facially or as applied to Valle. The court reasoned that the statute's purpose is to protect inmates and prison officials from assaults by armed prisoners and that it provides a clear standard of conduct. The court cited previous California decisions that consistently upheld the statute's constitutionality.The court concluded that a 14-inch by 1-inch sharpened piece of hard, non-flexible plastic is a sharp instrument prohibited by section 4502. Valle's possession of such items, concealed in his cell, demonstrated his understanding that they were prohibited. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Valle" on Justia Law

Kevin Gray, a sexually violent predator (SVP), was found suitable for conditional release. The State Department of State Hospitals identified a proposed placement for Gray, but the Stanislaus County District Attorney opposed it due to its proximity to a home where a child engaged in a public charter school’s independent study program. The court ruled that the home constituted a “school” under section 6608.5, subdivision (f), making the location ineligible for Gray’s placement.The trial court initially determined Gray was suitable for conditional release and ordered a housing search. After an extensive search, a proposed site was identified. The People opposed the site, arguing it was too close to a home-based school. The court agreed, ruling the home was a “school” under the statute, and barred the placement.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that a home where a child engages in a public school independent study program does not constitute a “school” under section 6608.5, subdivision (f). The court distinguished this case from People v. Superior Court (Cheek), which involved a private home school. The court noted that independent study is a program, not a type of school, and the legislative intent behind the placement restriction was to protect children in traditional school settings. The court declined to consider alternative arguments regarding the proximity of children fitting Gray’s victim profile, as these were not addressed by the trial court.The court granted the petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order barring Gray’s placement at the proposed site. View "Gray v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Brooklyn Broadway pled guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run causing death, while Ana Villanueva was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon, willful cruelty to an elder, and robbery. Both defendants were referred to the San Diego County Behavioral Health Court (BHC) for admission screening over the objections of the People. The People filed peremptory challenges against the assigned BHC judge, Judge Cynthia Davis, under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, which Judge Davis denied, concluding that BHC proceedings do not involve contested issues of fact or law.The People sought writs of mandate from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, to direct the trial court to grant their peremptory challenges. The appellate court issued orders to show cause and consolidated the petitions for review.The Court of Appeal held that BHC proceedings do involve contested issues of fact or law, as the BHC judge makes the final decision on whether to admit a defendant into the program, which can be contested by the parties involved. The court concluded that the BHC judge's role in screening and acceptance decisions, as well as in probation violation hearings, constitutes hearings involving contested issues of fact or law. Therefore, the People’s peremptory challenges were timely and appropriate.The Court of Appeal issued writs of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its orders denying the People’s peremptory challenges and to enter new orders granting the challenges. View "P. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In August 2020, Armani Miller pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter with a firearm use enhancement and was sentenced to 16 years in state prison. In May 2023, Miller filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that he could not be convicted of murder based on changes to the felony-murder rule effective January 1, 2019. Miller contended that subsequent cases recognizing youth as a factor in determining reckless indifference to human life should apply to his case.The Superior Court of Alameda County denied Miller's petition, finding that he failed to make a prima facie case for relief. The court reasoned that Miller's plea and conviction occurred after the changes to the felony-murder rule, and thus, he could not benefit from the amendments. The court also noted that Miller's argument based on subsequent case law was not sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for relief.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that Miller was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 because the amended information filed against him in January 2020 did not allow the prosecution to proceed under the old, now-invalid theory of felony murder. The court emphasized that the charging document required Miller to be a major participant in the kidnapping and to act with reckless indifference to human life, aligning with the amended felony-murder rule. Therefore, Miller could not establish a prima facie case for relief as he was not charged under a theory that imputed malice solely based on his participation in the crime. The court affirmed the denial of Miller's petition for resentencing. View "People v. Miller" on Justia Law

Daniel Bray pleaded no contest to possession of child pornography. The trial court sentenced him to two years of formal probation with several conditions, including restrictions on Internet use, dating or socializing with individuals who have custody of minors, and prohibitions on possessing or frequenting places with pornography. Bray challenged these conditions as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.The Santa Clara County Superior Court imposed these conditions, and Bray objected to the conditions regarding Internet use, dating and socializing, and pornography. The trial court overruled his objections, finding the conditions reasonable and related to the offense. Bray then appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the Internet use restriction was overbroad, as it unduly burdened Bray's ability to perform daily tasks and maintain employment. The court also found the condition on dating and socializing overbroad, as it infringed on Bray's right to freedom of association without being closely tailored to the goal of protecting minors. Additionally, the court agreed with the Attorney General's concession that the conditions regarding pornography were unconstitutionally vague and needed modification.The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court to strike or modify the conditions on Internet use, dating and socializing, and pornography to ensure they are narrowly tailored and specific. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "People v. Bray" on Justia Law