Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of second degree robbery and assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to eight years in prison, but the execution of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on five years of formal probation. The trial court also imposed a 10-year protective order pursuant to Penal Code section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1).The Court of Appeal concluded that the postconviction protective order pursuant to Penal Code section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1) must be vacated and that a remand for resentencing is warranted in light of the passage of Senate Bill 567 and Assembly Bill 124 while this appeal was pending. The court otherwise affirmed defendant's conviction, rejecting defendant's claims of instructional error, violation of her constitutional rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court remanded for resentencing. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Holiman was found in possession of illegal drugs and a handgun during a traffic stop initiated after he made a right-hand turn at a stop sign, while the arresting officer’s patrol car was stopped directly behind him. Holiman did signal the turn, but the basis for the traffic stop was that he did not turn on his signal blinker early enough: for the 100 feet he drove before coming to a stop. The arresting officer cited him for violation of Vehicle Code section 22108. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the seized evidence, following which he pled guilty to two felony drug charges.The court of appeal reversed. The warrantless seizure of the evidence violated the Fourth Amendment because the police lacked objectively reasonable suspicion. Holiman’s turn did not violate the Vehicle Code, and no reasonable police officer could think that it did. The statute refers to “the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” The prosecution presented no evidence that the turn could have affected any vehicle, including the officer’s patrol car. View "People v. Holiman" on Justia Law

In 2014, a jury found petitioner Larry Bailey guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and leaving the scene of an accident and found true various enhancements. Petitioner was sentenced to 28 years in prison. In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 57, which amended the California Constitution to grant early parole consideration to persons convicted of a nonviolent felony offense. It also authorized the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) to adopt regulations in furtherance of its guarantee of early parole consideration. In 2017 and 2018, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) considered petitioner for Proposition 57 parole. In each of the parole consideration proceedings, the Board allowed petitioner to submit a written statement explaining why he should be granted parole. The Board, through written decisions by a deputy commissioner, both times denied petitioner parole. Petitioner requested administrative review of each of the parole decisions; both decisions were upheld. Petitioner thereafter filed two petitions for writ of habeas corpus; the trial court denied petitioner’s claims challenging the evidentiary sufficiency of the parole denials, but granted petitioner habeas relief after finding he was entitled to “a live parole hearing at which [he] could attend.” The trial court interpreted Penal Code section 3041.5 “ ‘as providing for a hearing for all inmates eligible for parole consideration, at the very least to comply with federal and state due process concerns as well as equal protection.’ ” The trial court further ordered the Department to, within 60 days of the finality of the decision, promulgate new parole regulations to reflect the right to an in-person hearing under Proposition 57. The Department appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding Proposition 57 neither required nor impliedly incorporated an in-person hearing requirement, and the Department acted within its delegated authority under Penal Code section 32(b) when it adopted the parole regulations at issue in this appeal. The Court further concluded the absence of an in-person hearing did not violate equal protection principles, nor did it violate a prisoner’s right to procedural due process. View "In re Bailey" on Justia Law

In 1984, Friend robbed an Oakland bar and fatally stabbed Pierucci. Convicted of first-degree murder and robbery with a special circumstance, Friend was sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and denied Friend’s state habeas corpus petition.Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016, requires that capital habeas corpus petitions generally be presented to the sentencing court and that a successive habeas corpus petition be dismissed unless the court finds that the petitioner makes a showing of actual innocence or ineligibility for the death penalty. A petitioner may appeal the denial of a successive petition only if the sentencing court or the court of appeal grants a certificate of appealability (COA). The sentencing court denied Friend’s second habeas petition and his request for a COA. The court of appeal denied a COA. The California Supreme Court remanded with directions to analyze whether Friend made a substantial showing that the claims in his second habeas corpus petition are not successive.On remand, the court of appeal again denied relief. Friend essentially acknowledged that all the claims in his second petition were either known or could and should have been discovered earlier and he failed to allege specific facts showing the omission of some claims from the initial petition reflects incompetence of prior habeas counsel. Friend failed to show a substantial claim that he is either actually innocent or ineligible for the death sentence. View "In re Friend" on Justia Law

It does not violate the confrontation clause for a judge to order trial witnesses to wear masks during the current pandemic. The Constitution does not require judges to imperil public health.The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for an order barring witnesses from testifying through a mask. The court concluded that defendant enjoyed his right to confront the witnesses against him, and case law defendant cites to the contrary are distinguishable from the circumstances here. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence showing that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim where defendant headbutted and punched the victim's face many times. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court acted neither irrationally nor arbitrarily in denying defendant's request to strike his 2016 prior conviction for attempted robbery where the trial court was concerned about defendant's relatively recent and increasing threat to public safety. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In 2002, a jury convicted petitioner Jason Harper of felony murder, and found true a robbery-murder special circumstance allegation for his participation in the robbery of a store, which resulted in the murder of the store’s manager. Although he was 16 years old at the time of the robbery, the trial court sentenced petitioner to state prison for life without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on direct appeal in 2004 but, more than a decade later, the trial court resentenced petitioner to 25 years to life after a federal district court issued a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner sought habeas relief again from the resulting sentence from the federal court's grant of relief, arguing the jury’s special circumstance finding was no longer viable after the California Supreme Court's decisions in California v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) and California v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016),because the evidence did not establish he was a major participant in the robbery and that he acted with reckless disregard for human life. After review, the Court of Appeal denied the petition, finding the evidence in the record of conviction showed petitioner was a major participant in the robbery, and he acted with reckless indifference to human life, "so the jury’s special circumstance finding must stand." View "In re Harper" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court's denial of a petition for a writ of traditional mandamus in which plaintiff sought an order directing respondent, a correctional counselor with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), to grant his request for an overnight visit with his spouse. The CDCR determined that plaintiff was not eligible for family visitation because family visits are not allowed for inmates convicted of a violent offense (including first degree murder) if the victim was an immediate family member as defined in Penal Code section 3000, and that "step-parents" are included in section 3000's definition of "immediate family members."The court concluded that it need not decide which form of mandamus was most appropriate because the court's review is functionally the same under either form of mandamus. On de novo review, the court concluded that the CDCR's denial of relief was not clearly unreasonable based on its interpretation of the term "step-parent" as it is used in section 3000. In this case, the CDCR interpreted the term "step-parent" to include the widowed husband of plaintiff's biological mother (deceased). Given the broad authority conferred upon the Director of Corrections (now, the Secretary of CDCR) under Penal Code section 5058, the court concluded that that interpretation does not conflict with the Secretary's statutory authority. View "Gann v. Acosta" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal conditionally affirmed the order declaring defendant to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) and committing him to the State Department of State Hospitals for an indeterminate term. The court concluded that the trial court's failure to provide a full advisement to defendant of his rights to a jury trial did not violate due process in light of People v. Washington (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 453, 463. However, the court declined to find that defendant forfeited his equal protection claim and concluded that defendant has a colorable equal protection challenge in light of People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1202. If the trial court determines there is an equal protection violation, the court shall vacate the order declaring defendant to be an SVP and set the matter for a jury trial, unless defendant provides a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a jury trial after being personally advised of that right. View "People v. Magana" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of special-circumstance murder and sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when she was 16 years old. The Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded for resentencing in light of Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b). On remand, the trial court mischaracterized the court's mandate as simply directing a clarification of its prior sentencing decision.The Court of Appeal concluded that defendant is entitled to a sentencing decision made in the exercise of informed discretion by the sentencing court, and the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the outcome would not be different if she were present at the hearing and she and her counsel had a fair opportunity to provide information concerning the youth-related mitigating factors identified in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, and People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1388-1389. However, the court concluded that a different result is not possible before the judge who has previously heard the matter. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and again remanded for resentencing with all further proceedings to be heard before a different trial judge. View "People v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the trial court's order denying petitioner's motion to reduce bail. The court concluded that petitioner is entitled to a new bail hearing that complies with In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135, where the Supreme Court held that conditioning pretrial release from custody solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.The court ordered the trial court to hold a new hearing at which it is to consider nonmonetary alternatives to money bail, determine petitioner's ability to afford the amount of money bail if it is to be set, and follow the procedures and make the findings necessary for a valid order of detention if no conditions for pretrial release will adequately protect the government's interests in the safety of potential victims and the public generally or the integrity of the criminal proceedings. View "In re Brown" on Justia Law