Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Twin brothers, Roman and Ruslan Glukhoy, led police on two high speed chases, the second of which was in a stolen truck and culminated in a fatal collision killing two people. Separate juries found them guilty of multiple offenses and allegations.1 Ruslan, who was convicted of first degree murder with felony-murder special-circumstances, was sentenced to two terms of life without the possibly of parole. Roman, who was convicted of two counts of second degree murder, was sentenced to 30 years to life. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded the alternative-theory instructional error in Roman’s case brought about Senate Bill 1437 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence establishing the valid theory of direct aiding and abetting implied malice was overwhelming. In addition, the Court found that evidence was the same evidence the jury had to have credited to find defendant guilty based on the now invalid natural and probable consequences theory. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court rejected the remainder of Roman's and all of Ruslan's contentions and affirmed the judgments. View "California v. Glukhoy" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to a determinate term in state prison on four counts of forcible rape, which included a six-year middle term on count 3, forcible rape in concert. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to vacate his sentence, concluding that the original sentence was correct. The court found that while Defendant correctly contends that the sentence on the rape-in-concert conviction on count 3 was unauthorized, the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain his motion to vacate his sentence.The court held that the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to correct an unauthorized sentence is not appealable. The court reasoned that generally “once a judgment is rendered and execution of the sentence has begun, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence.” Defendant relies on the doctrine that an unauthorized sentence may be corrected “at any time.” The court stated that the “unauthorized sentence” rule is an exception to the waiver doctrine, not to the requirement that a court must have jurisdiction before it may act. Therefore, the doctrine does not itself create jurisdiction for the trial court to rule on a motion challenging the legality of a sentence. Defendant's remedy is to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Second Appellate District dismissed Defendant's appeal. View "P. v. King" on Justia Law

After a 2009 drive-by shooting killed one man while his companion escaped, the prosecution argued that Coley was the car’s driver and Peters was the shooter. The two were jointly charged with first-degree murder with special circumstances and with attempted murder, with firearm and gang enhancements. The jury was instructed on first-degree murder based on theories of premeditation and deliberation; second-degree murder based on either express or implied malice; attempted murder, both with and without premeditation; and direct aiding and abetting. The jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Both were convicted of second-degree murder and attempted murder without premeditation.In 2018, S.B. 1437 eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine for finding a defendant guilty of murder and limited the felony-murder rule to cases where the defendant was the actual killer, acted with an intent to kill, or acted as a “major participant” in the underlying felony and with “reckless indifference to human life.” Qualifying individuals could seek resentencing if they could not now be convicted of murder under the amended law. In 2022, S.B. 775, allowed resentencing for persons convicted of murder under any “theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.”The trial court denied Coley’s petition for resentencing, acknowledging that the jury instructions on implied malice contained a natural and probable consequences component, but reasoning that the jury found express malice. The court of appeal, on transfer from the California Supreme Court, again affirmed the denial of relief. Direct aiding and abetting remains a valid theory of attempted murder. By finding Coley guilty of attempted murder, the jury necessarily found he had personally harbored intent to kill or express malice when he aided and abetted the second-degree murder. View "People v. Coley" on Justia Law

Each appellant was charged with two counts of second-degree robbery (Pen. Code 211, 212.5(c)) based on a 2015 incident. As to each count and defendant, the prosecution alleged that a principal personally used a firearm and that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code 186.22(b)(1)(C)). Each defendant had been convicted of prior serious felony offenses. Lozano pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree robbery and active participation in a criminal street gang in exchange for a sentence of three years. A jury found three defendants guilty on both counts and found true the gang allegations but hung on the firearm allegations. As to each defendant, the court imposed an aggregate term of 21 years: six years for robbery, 10 years for the gang enhancements, and five years for the prior felony offenses.In 2022, Assembly Bill 333 amended the law governing gang-related offenses. After finding that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, the court of appeal reversed and remanded. Assembly Bill 333 is retroactive in amending the requirements for proving a gang enhancement and (Penal Code section 1109) in allowing the defense to request a bifurcated trial on a gang enhancement. View "People v. Burgos" on Justia Law

Crites was convicted in 1977 of first-degree murder, receiving stolen property, and auto theft. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate term as prescribed under the law at the time. In 2021, Crites filed a motion entitled, “motion for discovery and/or correction/expungement of erroneous information affecting ‘liberty interests’ and ‘due process ” in the superior court, seeking to correct information in his probation report regarding his alleged commission of rape offenses in Oregon.A clerk of the court rejected the motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction to consider the post-judgment motion. Crites filed a document arguing the court had jurisdiction to consider his claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 916(b) and a motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion, stating that “ ‘[t]here is no statutory authority for a trial court to entertain a post-judgment motion that is unrelated to any proceeding then pending before the court. The court of appeal reversed. Penal Code section 1203.01(a) authorizes the motion: “[t]he attorney for the defendant . . . [to] file with the clerk of the court [a] statement of their views respecting the defendant and the crime of which they were convicted.” View "People v. Crites" on Justia Law

in 2016, Defendant pleaded guilty to various felony offenses. The court sentenced Defendant to four years in prison. However, the court suspended the execution of Defendant's sentence pending the completion of four years of probation. Three years later, Defendant pleaded guilty to several domestic violence offenses, including assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court found Defendant in violation of his probation and sentenced him to 6 years and 8 months in prison.Defendant appealed, seeking relief under Assembly Bill 1950 ("AB 1950"). AB 1950 was passed in September 2020 and became effective in January 2021. However, several appellate courts have determined that AB 1950 is retroactive to cases that are not yet final.The prosecution claims that Defendant was not entitled to relief, however, because he had violated his probationary term prior to the enactment of AB 1950. The Second Appellate District disagreed, finding that, although the trial court had terminated Defendant's probation, that decision was not yet "final" because it was still on appeal. View "P. v. Canedos" on Justia Law

Vacaville Officer Hill followed a car and noticed the license plate light and third brake light at the vehicle's back window appeared not to be working. Hill initiated a traffic stop. Pantoja was alone in the car. When Pantoja gave his name, Hill remembered Pantoja “had a history of violence and firearm possession, and he was at the time an investigative lead in a homicide.” There was no smell of marijuana and no contraband in plain view. Hill saw no signs that Pantoja was intoxicated. Hill ran a record check and learned Pantoja had a valid license and was not on probation or parole. Hill asked Pantoja if he could look in the vehicle for contraband. Pantoja declined. Hill then asked Pantoja to exit his car and put his hands behind his head because Hill was going to issue a citation for the lighting infractions. Pantoja did not make any furtive gestures or sudden movements. As Hill patted Pantoja’s waistband area, he found a revolver. Pantoja was arrested.The trial court granted Pantoja’s motion to suppress, explaining: “[T]he officer … didn’t have any specific or articulable facts to believe that this individual was presently armed or dangerous. The court of appeal affirmed. An officer’s knowledge of a suspect’s past arrests or convictions is inadequate to furnish reasonable suspicion as is the knowledge that a suspect is merely under investigation. View "People v. Pantoja" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one felony count of possession of a controlled substance for sale. On appeal, defendant sought relief under Assembly Bill 1950 ("AB 1950") which limits probation to a period not to exceed one year in misdemeanor cases and two years in felony cases, subject to certain exceptions. The parties agreed that AB 1950 is retroactive, however, they disagree on the remedy. The People claimed that remand was required to afford the prosecutor the opportunity to withdraw from the plea bargain or the trial court to rescind its approval, restore the felony charge, and allow the parties to renegotiate the plea bargain or proceed to trial.The court found that all appellate courts presented with this issue concluded that AB 1950 is ameliorative. Further, applying AB 1950 to all cases not yet final on review except for those specifically excluded by the Legislature effectuates the legislative intent. The People’s suggested remedy speaks only to their interests without taking into consideration defendant’s interests, in disregard of the concept of reciprocity in plea bargaining. Thus, based on the plain language and legislative intent underlying AB 1950, the court concluded that defendant was entitled to modification of his probation term from three years to one year. View "P. v. Flores" on Justia Law

In 2004, Cooper was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping based on his participation in a 1995 killing. The jury found true that a principal was armed with a firearm during both offenses, but acquitted Cooper of the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Cooper was sentenced to 58 years to life in prison. In 2019, Cooper sought relief under Penal Code section 1170.95, which altered liability for murder under the theories of felony murder and natural and probable consequences; eligible defendants may petition to have their murder convictions vacated and be resentenced. Cooper alleged he was convicted of felony murder and could no longer be convicted of murder under amended Penal Code section 189.The trial court found he had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. The parties did not submit any new or additional evidence. The court then found beyond a reasonable doubt that Cooper was “a major participant” in the underlying kidnapping and acted “with reckless indifference to human life” under amended section 189(e)(3), precluding relief under section 1170.95.The court of appeal reversed. It was improper for the trial court to rely on its belief that Cooper possessed and fired a gun, given Cooper’s acquittal of the firearm-possession offense. A court cannot deny relief under section 1170.95 based on findings that are inconsistent with a previous acquittal when no evidence other than that introduced at trial is presented. View "People v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Charlie Hola guilty of second degree murder. Defendant’s conviction arises from a murder capping a three-hour crime spree. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 48 years to life. Defendant originally raised several contentions related to the natural and probable consequences theory underlying his second degree murder conviction, including that insufficient evidence supported his conviction based on that theory and he was entitled to relief under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). He also claimed his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to speculative gang testimony; that insufficient evidence supported a finding that he acted for the benefit of a criminal gang; that there was instructional error related to the natural and probable consequences doctrine relative to self-defense and mutual combat; and that certain conduct credits the trial court withheld for jail misconduct must be restored. After oral argument and supplemental briefing, the parties agreed defendant’s murder conviction could not stand in light of the Senate Bill 1437 and Senate Bill 775 amendments. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether the Court of Appeal should also remand the matter to the trial court to afford the prosecution the opportunity to advance a valid murder theory at a new trial. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed defendant’s murder conviction and vacated the associated enhancements. The Court held that the State was entitled to retry defendant on the murder charge based on a valid theory of liability if it could do so in good faith, along with the associated enhancements. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the Court rejected defendant’s other contentions or concluded that they were moot in light of the reversal of his second degree murder conviction. View "California v. Hola" on Justia Law