Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2009, the defendant was convicted by a jury of multiple charges, including two counts of robbery, attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder, two counts of assault with a firearm, discharging a firearm at an occupied building, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and actively participating in a criminal street gang. He was sentenced to a total of 90 years and four months in prison. The judgment was affirmed on appeal in 2010.In October 2023, the defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, which allows for retroactive relief for certain convictions under amended murder laws. The Superior Court of Riverside County held a status conference and a hearing on the petition. The defendant was not present, but counsel was appointed to represent him. During the hearing, the prosecutor argued that the jury instructions from the original trial, which were based on direct aiding and abetting, precluded the defendant from relief. The defense counsel agreed with the prosecutor's recitation of the jury instructions. The court summarily denied the petition without reviewing the record of conviction or any documentary evidence.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court failed to conduct the necessary inquiry mandated by section 1172.6, subdivision (c), which requires a review of the record of conviction to determine a petitioner's eligibility for relief. The appellate court concluded that the trial court's summary denial of the petition was inadequate and that the appellate court should not perform the trial court's function of reviewing the record in the first instance.The appellate court reversed the order denying the petition and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct the requisite proceedings under section 1172.6, subdivision (c). The court did not take a position on whether the defendant ultimately made a prima facie claim for relief. View "P. v. Gallardo" on Justia Law

Marquishon Hughey and Dequon Dillard were convicted of kidnapping and second-degree robbery after they, along with an accomplice, entered an AT&T store in Camarillo, California, and forced three employees to move to a back safe room at gunpoint. The employees were then ordered to load phones into bags. The defendants were sentenced to 12 years in state prison, including a two-year, out-on-bail enhancement.The Ventura County Superior Court found the defendants guilty of simple kidnapping, a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping, and second-degree robbery. The court determined that the movement of the victims was more than incidental to the robbery, as it increased the risk of physical and psychological harm by removing the victims from public view and placing them in a confined space.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case and affirmed the kidnapping convictions. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the movement of the victims was not merely incidental to the robbery. The movement increased the risk of harm and psychological trauma, as the victims were moved to a hidden area, which decreased the likelihood of detection and increased the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape. The court also noted that the defendants could have committed the robbery without moving all the employees to the back room.However, the appellate court stayed the two-year, out-on-bail enhancements because there was no evidence that the defendants were convicted of the primary offense in Tulare County, which is required to impose such an enhancement. The judgments were otherwise affirmed. View "People v. Hughey" on Justia Law

In 2006, the defendant and other gang members robbed two men at gunpoint in a Denny’s restroom. During the robbery, a friend of the victims, Armand Jones, entered and resisted, leading to a chase outside. Shots were fired, resulting in Jones' death and another person being wounded. The defendant was charged with murder, attempted murder, robbery, and other related offenses. The prosecutor conceded the defendant did not shoot the victims but argued he was guilty of felony murder for participating in the robbery and attempted murder as a natural consequence of the robbery.The jury convicted the defendant on all charges, including special circumstances that the murder was committed during a robbery and to further gang activities. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole, and the convictions were affirmed on appeal. In 2022, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that the jury's findings did not meet the new requirements for felony murder liability under Senate Bill 1437, which narrowed the scope of vicarious liability for murder.The Superior Court of Orange County summarily denied the petition, citing the jury's finding that the defendant acted with intent to kill. The defendant appealed, arguing that the record did not conclusively establish his ineligibility for resentencing. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred in its denial. The appellate court held that the defendant must have assisted the actual killer in committing the murderous act, not just the underlying felony, to be liable under the revised felony murder rule. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's entitlement to resentencing. View "People v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three felonies related to firearm and ammunition possession. During a traffic stop, police officers discovered a loaded handgun in his vehicle. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the traffic stop was unduly prolonged and pretextual, and dismissed the case.The Sonoma County Superior Court found that the traffic stop was pretextual and unduly prolonged, as the officers could have issued the citation at the gas station where they first observed the defendant. The court also noted that new legislation would make pretextual stops illegal, although this law was not yet in effect. The court concluded that the stop was designed to allow time for a canine unit to arrive and conduct a search, which it deemed unreasonable.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court's finding of an unduly prolonged stop was unsupported by substantial evidence. The appellate court noted that the traffic stop began when the vehicle was pulled over, not when the officers first observed the defendant. The court found that the time taken to write the citation and conduct the canine search was within the normal duration for such activities. Additionally, the court clarified that the new Vehicle Code section 2806.5, which prohibits pretextual stops, was not in effect at the time of the stop and does not alter the federal constitutional analysis regarding pretextual stops. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order suppressing the evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "People v. Valle" on Justia Law

In 2018 and 2019, a minor, J.S., committed a series of serious crimes, including seven street robberies, two burglaries, an attempted robbery resulting in murder, and the drugging and sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. J.S. was 16 and 17 years old at the time of these offenses. The People filed an 18-count petition against J.S., including charges of murder, robbery, burglary, and sexual assault, and sought to transfer him to adult criminal court.The juvenile court in Ventura County conducted a transfer hearing and found that J.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system's jurisdiction, which would expire when he turned 25. The court considered J.S.'s criminal sophistication, previous delinquent history, and the gravity of the offenses. Despite evidence of J.S.'s participation in rehabilitation programs and expert testimony suggesting potential for rehabilitation, the court concluded that the severity and premeditated nature of his crimes, along with his behavior in custody, indicated a need for prolonged treatment and supervision beyond the juvenile system's capacity.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the juvenile court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the transfer order, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings. The appellate court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its discretion for that of the trial court. The court found that the juvenile court had appropriately considered the statutory criteria and expert testimony, and its conclusion that J.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system was supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "People v. J.S." on Justia Law

Luis Alfonso Martinez was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse against a minor, Jane Doe, who was the daughter of his long-term girlfriend. The abuse began when Doe was around seven years old and continued for several years. Martinez was found guilty of attempted sexual penetration of a child under 10, sexual penetration of a child under 10, continuous sexual abuse of a child, lewd acts upon a child under 14, and lewd acts upon a child under 14 by use of force, duress, and fear. The jury also found aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and Martinez's abuse of a position of trust.The Superior Court of Riverside County sentenced Martinez to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life, plus a determinate term of 21 years and four months. Martinez appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the charges were in the alternative, leading to multiple convictions that violated Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (c). He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction of lewd acts by force, fear, or duress, and claimed the trial court abused its discretion in responding to a jury question about the definition of "sexual penetration."The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, agreed that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on alternative charges was prejudicial error. The appellate court decided to remand the case for a hearing to determine which counts to vacate, rather than ordering a new trial or deciding which counts to dismiss itself. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for lewd acts by force, fear, or duress, noting Martinez's position of authority and the victim's fear. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's response to the jury's question, as the response correctly stated the law and did not prejudice Martinez.The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "P. v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Kavonte Amarion Vaughn sought a writ of mandate to vacate an order denying his request for mental health diversion under California Penal Code sections 1001.35 and 1001.36. Vaughn was charged with two counts of second-degree robbery and one count of second-degree attempted robbery. The trial court found that Vaughn met the eligibility and suitability requirements for mental health diversion, including that he would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. However, the court denied the diversion, citing Vaughn's failure to make a "serious enough effort" to be deemed suitable for mental health diversion.The Los Angeles County Superior Court initially reviewed the case. Vaughn posted bail and underwent a psychological evaluation, which confirmed his mental health issues, including schizoaffective disorder and PTSD. Despite the trial court's acknowledgment of Vaughn's eligibility, it denied the motion for diversion, focusing on Vaughn's perceived lack of seriousness about his mental health treatment, particularly his failure to bring his medication bottles to the evaluation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not considering the legislative goals of the mental health diversion law. The appellate court noted that Vaughn had made a prima facie showing of eligibility and suitability for diversion and that the trial court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court emphasized that the trial court's discretion must align with the legislative intent to broadly apply mental health diversion to reduce recidivism and support public safety.The appellate court granted Vaughn's petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying mental health diversion and to grant the motion, barring any evidence of changed circumstances affecting Vaughn's suitability. The trial court must ensure that the recommended mental health treatment program meets Vaughn's specialized needs. View "Vaughn v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Wayne Jones was convicted of first-degree murder for the beating death of Michael Robinson. On January 11, 2020, Jones and Robinson were at a shopping center. Jones retrieved a stick attached to his bicycle, followed Robinson, and struck him in the head multiple times, causing severe injuries. Robinson was placed in a medically induced coma and underwent surgery. Despite initial signs of potential recovery, Robinson's family decided to withdraw life support based on his predicted quality of life and limited resources. Robinson died on January 16, 2020, and the medical examiner determined the cause of death was blunt force injuries to the head.The Superior Court of San Diego County found Jones guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to 25 years to life, plus one year for a weapon enhancement. Jones appealed, arguing that the withdrawal of life support broke the chain of legal causation, the prosecutor committed misconduct, there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, and the trial court applied the wrong standard in denying his motion to reduce the verdict.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the withdrawal of life support was a dependent intervening cause of death, not an independent one, and thus did not absolve Jones of liability. The court found sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, noting Jones's actions before and during the attack. The court also determined that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not constitute misconduct and that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on causation. Finally, the court found no error in the trial court's denial of Jones's motion to reduce the verdict, affirming the conviction and sentence. View "People v. Jones" on Justia Law

In 2017, Michael Ingram was found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) and committed to the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for an indeterminate term under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). In 2020, he filed a petition for conditional release, arguing he was not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if released under supervision and treatment in the community. The trial court denied his petition, and Ingram appealed, challenging both the trial court’s decision and the constitutionality of the SVPA’s conditional release provisions.The Superior Court of Sacramento County initially handled the case, where a jury found Ingram to be an SVP. Ingram then filed a petition for conditional release, which the trial court denied. The court found that Ingram had not made significant progress in his treatment program and that his risk to the community remained unchanged. The court also noted that while Ingram might receive better treatment in the community, the issue before the court was whether he could be safely released, not whether he could receive better treatment elsewhere.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the denial of Ingram’s petition. The appellate court noted that all experts agreed Ingram continued to meet the definition of an SVP and that he had not yet learned to control his sexually violent behavior. The court also found that Ingram’s proposed alternative conditional release program, which included 24/7, one-on-one supervision, was neither reasonable nor required by the SVPA. Additionally, the court rejected Ingram’s constitutional challenges, noting that these issues were not properly raised in the lower court and that Ingram lacked standing to challenge potential delays in finding housing for conditionally released SVPs. View "People v. Ingram" on Justia Law

In 2018, the defendant was sentenced to 12 years in state prison for multiple offenses, including shooting at an occupied vehicle and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. In 2022, the trial court recalled the sentence under Penal Code section 1172.75, struck a prior prison term enhancement, and resentenced the defendant to 11 years. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing the upper term based on aggravating factors not found true beyond a reasonable doubt and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to this.The Superior Court of Butte County initially sentenced the defendant to 12 years, citing multiple aggravating factors such as the defendant's prior criminal record and unsatisfactory performance on probation. Upon resentencing in 2022, the trial court struck the prior prison term enhancement but reimposed the upper term, resulting in an 11-year sentence. The defendant did not object to the reimposition of the upper term during resentencing.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that under section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4), the trial court was not required to find aggravating factors true beyond a reasonable doubt if the upper term was previously imposed. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in reimposing the upper term and that the defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to object, as there was no sound legal basis for such an objection. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's resentencing order. View "People v. Brannon-Thompson" on Justia Law