Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 1979, Anderson was tried for the murders and robberies of the Ranzos, for burglarizing their home, and for the separate robbery of Luna. With respect to the Ranzos, the jury convicted Anderson of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of robbery, and one count of burglary; his convictions were affirmed. In 2019, Anderson sought relief under Penal Code 1170.95 based on Senate Bill 1437, which amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder. Anderson unsuccessfully sought to exclude from the court’s consideration his testimony from prior parole hearings. The court found that the prosecution had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Anderson could be convicted of felony murder as a major participant in an enumerated felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life and that he could also be found guilty under a direct aiding and abetting theory.The court of appeal affirmed. Anderson has not established that the trial court erred in considering testimony from his parole suitability hearings. The authorities cited by Anderson demonstrate that he was required to establish that a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination applied in his section 1170.95 evidentiary hearing; Anderson made only the conclusory assertion that he “had a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination,” failing to provide any reasoned supporting argument. View "People v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Cruz-Partida was charged with the murder of Nicholas G.; the attempted murder of Steven G. (Nicholas’s brother); felony assault of Steven G. with a semiautomatic firearm; and felony assault of Steven G. and/or Nicholas G. with a semiautomatic firearm. Counts 1 through 3 related to the 2016 shooting of Nicholas and Steven in a South San Francisco park, which led to Nicholas’s death and injured Steven; count 4 relates to conduct which occurred prior to the park shooting outside of Cruz-Partida’s nearby apartment.The jury acquitted Cruz-Partida of counts 1 through 3. Cruz-Partida was convicted of assault with a semiautomatic firearm with a related special allegation of firearm use. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Cruz-Partida’s argument that insufficient evidence supported his assault conviction because there was no evidence his conduct was likely to produce injurious consequences. Cruz-Partida’s offensive and dangerous conduct along with the surrounding circumstances provide substantial evidence of the necessary mens rea for assault. The jury was properly instructed on the law of self-defense; it is clear they knew how to apply it, as they acquitted Cruz-Partida on the more serious charges associated with the altercation at the park. View "People v. Cruz-Partida" on Justia Law

In July 2016, Reagan was killed while he was operating Czirban’s bulldozer in aid of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection at a Monterey County wildfire. An investigation revealed that Czirban did not have workers’ compensation insurance. The trial court convicted Czirban of procuring or offering a false or forged instrument, tax evasion, failure to collect, account for, or pay taxes, and misdemeanor failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance. The court suspended the imposition of sentence, placed Czirban on felony probation for three years, and reserved the issue of restitution. Czirban appealed the conviction. While that appeal was pending, the court ordered Czirban to pay, as a condition of his probation, victim restitution of $70,667.56 to Reagan’s partner, Morgan, the mother of their two children (Pen. Code 1237(b)).The court of appeal affirmed in part, rejecting Czirban’s arguments that the trial court improperly awarded restitution for attorney fees because the award rests on a violation of the Workers’ Compensation Act related to a survivors’ benefit paid to Morgan by the state and that the restitution award is invalid as a probation condition because the attorney fees lacked a rational nexus to his misconduct, were excessive, and were unreasonably calculated. The court reversed the award of $22,485.13 in interest as calculated from the wrong date. View "People v. Czirban" on Justia Law

Defendant Frankie Weisner pleaded no contest to second degree robbery and grand theft, and admitted he personally used a firearm in the robbery. After his initial appeal was denied as untimely, defendant sought to reduce his conviction on the grand theft count to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18, which the trial court denied. Defendant appealed the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing. Once the Court of Appeal determines an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief is not subject to "Wende" review, then the case becomes a "standard" appeal of an order denying postconviction relief in which defendant, through counsel, stated there were no issues that properly could be raised on appeal. Under these circumstances, the appeal was abandoned and the Court of Appeal dismissed it. View "California v. Weisner" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction for shooting at an occupied motor vehicle and the related firearm and gang enhancements. He argued that the Superior Court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence related to an uncharged offense and in imposing the firearm enhancement and gang enhancements. He further challenged the validity of the gang enhancement, firearm enhancement, and underlying conviction pursuant to Assembly Bill 333. He also asserted that his conviction for shooting at an occupied motor vehicle must be reversed and retried in a bifurcated proceeding under newly enacted section 1109. Finally, he challenged the imposition of a restitution fine and certain court assessments.   The Fifth Appellate District found that Assembly Bill 333 applies retroactively and Defendant is entitled to reversal of his gang and firearm enhancements on that basis. However, the court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. The court first held that the proffered evidence of Defendant’s documented association with two other gang members was relevant. Next, excluding evidence of these offenses, the existing record is insufficient to support the heightened evidentiary requirements set forth by amended section 186.22 following the enactment of Assembly Bill 333. Further, because the imposed section 12022.53, subdivision (a)(17) enhancement applied to Defendant only because his penalty had been elevated to a life term through the alternate penalty provision in former section 186.22, the section 12022.53 enhancement is no longer supported. View "P. v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder in 2010. The jury also found that Petitioner committed the offense within the meaning of the gang enhancement (Cal. Penal Code Sec. 186.22(b)(1)(C)). However, the jury rejected the firearm enhancements. In 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for resentencing citing Senate Bill 1437 ("SB 1437"), claiming he was not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, and was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The trial court denied relief, finding that Petitioner was convicted under a theory of aiding and abetting.The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court's denial of Petitioner's SB 1437 petition for resentencing. At trial, the jury was instructed that it could only find Petitioner guilty of first-degree murder if it "concluded he acted willfully and with intent to kill." Thus, by finding Petitioner guilty of murder, the jury necessarily found he acted with the intent to kill. Further, the trial court did not instruct the jury on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Because SB 1437 amended the felony murder law only as it pertains to the natural and probable causes doctrine, Petitioner was not entitled to relief. View "P. v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with the following counts: 1.) dissuasion of a victim by threat of force, 2.) criminal threats, 3.) assault with a deadly weapon, and 4.) infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on a victim. The jury found Defendant guilty of counts 1, 2 and 4. Additionally, the jury found Defendant guilty of simple assault, as a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant appealed his convictions for counts 1 and 3.The Fifth Appellate District affirmed Defendant's conviction for dissuasion of a victim by threat of force, determining that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on the single count of dissuasion of a victim by threat of force by leaving out the malice requirement. However, the court's error was harmless.The Fifth Appellate District reversed Defendant's conviction for simple assault, finding that simple assault is a lesser included offense of dissuasion of a victim by threat of force. In so doing, the court rejected the government's argument that Defendant's convictions for misdemeanor assault and infliction of corporal injury were based on different acts. View "P. v. Serrano" on Justia Law

In 2012, Birdsall (age 16) and Nicosia murdered Latiolais in her home and stole a car, guns, jewelry, and marijuana. Birdsall had a distant family relationship with the victim and had done work at her home. Birdsall and Nicosia hid outside the house for several hours; when Latiolais did not leave, they decided to kill her and proceed with the burglary. They later returned and set the house on fire. Police arrested and interrogated Birdsall, who made inculpatory statements. Video recordings of the interrogation were played for the jury at Birdsall’s trial. Birdsall presented a mental state defense but was convicted of first-degree murder and arson. The jury found true the alleged special circumstances. The court sentenced Birdsall to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction, plus a consecutive five-year term for arson.After the retroactive application of Proposition 57, which requires that a transfer hearing be held in juvenile court before the initiation of adult criminal court proceedings against a minor, the case was remanded to juvenile court, which conducted a transfer hearing and found Birdsall not suitable for juvenile court adjudication and reinstated the original judgment. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Birdsall’s argument that the court erred by failing to suppress his inculpatory statements, which he claims were obtained in violation of Miranda and were involuntary, and challenges to his sentence and to one of the jury instructions. View "Peope v. Birdsall" on Justia Law

Defendant Weldon McDavid, Jr. appealed his resentencing after the Court of Appeal remanded this matter following his original appeal in California v. Lovejoy et al. (July 28, 2020, D073477), a nonpublished opinion (Lovejoy). In Lovejoy, the appellate court affirmed McDavid’s criminal convictions, but vacated his sentence and remanded the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under recently amended Penal Code section 12022.53 to either impose or strike the section 12022.53 (d) enhancements that the court had originally imposed under the former version of the statute. On remand, the trial court declined to strike the section 12022.53 enhancements and reimposed its original sentence, except for a reduction of the restitution fines from $10,000 to $1,800. After consideration of McDavid's arguments on appeal, the Court of Appeal vacated McDavid’s sentence and any balance of the criminal justice administration fee imposed under former Government Code section 29550.1 that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021, and remanded the matter for resentencing to: (1) allow the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether to impose lesser, uncharged section 12022.53, section 12022.5 (a), or other lesser included enhancements in lieu of imposing section 12022.53 (d) enhancements; (2) amend its abstract of judgment to reflect the Court's vacatur of any criminal justice administration fee imposed under former Government Code section 29550.1 that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021; and (3) correct its April 30, 2021 minute order and amend its abstract of judgment to reflect an award to McDavid of presentence credit for all custody time served through the time of his April 30, 2021 resentencing. In all other respects, judgment was affirmed. View "California v. McDavid" on Justia Law

Defendants Victor Wilkins and Aaron Vaughn were found guilty of human trafficking and multiple counts of pimping and pandering; some counts involved a minor victim. They appealed their resultant sentences. After careful review, the Court of Appeal concluded the sentences violated Penal Code section 654, and modified them accordingly. Finding no other reversible error, the Court affirmed in all other respects. View "California v. Vaughn" on Justia Law