Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2014, Donald Hill, Jr. handed a gun to Timothy Mitchell, who, along with Danny Jeffreys, opened fire on a group of men, resulting in the death of Tereaun Berry and the injury of his brother Trent. Hill was convicted in 2015 of first-degree murder and attempted murder. On appeal in 2018, his murder conviction was reversed due to a trial court error, but his attempted murder conviction was affirmed. In 2019, Hill entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to attempted premeditated murder of Tereaun Berry, and the original murder count was dismissed.Hill petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 in 2022. The district attorney conceded a prima facie case for relief, but the trial court ultimately denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. Hill argued that the trial court erred by relying on principles of implied malice and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that Hill was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 because he was not convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury instructions and verdicts established that Hill was convicted of attempted murder as a direct aider and abettor, a theory still valid under current law. The court also found that Hill's no contest plea to attempted premeditated murder indicated express malice, making him ineligible for relief. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Hill's petition for resentencing. View "People v. Hill" on Justia Law

Rachel Moniz and Paola Correa filed separate lawsuits against Adecco USA, Inc. under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleging violations of the Labor Code. Moniz and Adecco settled their case, but Correa challenged the fairness of the settlement. The trial court approved the revised settlement over Correa's objections and awarded attorney’s fees to Moniz’s counsel. Correa's request for a service award and attorney’s fees for her own work was largely denied. Correa appealed, arguing the trial court's analysis of the revised settlement was flawed and that her request for attorney’s fees and a service award should have been granted.The San Mateo County Superior Court overruled Adecco's demurrer in Moniz's case, while the San Francisco Superior Court sustained Adecco's demurrer in Correa's case. Correa's motion to intervene in Moniz's suit was denied, and her subsequent appeal was also denied. The trial court approved Moniz's settlement with Adecco, awarding Moniz a service award and attorney’s fees, but denied Correa’s requests. Correa's motions for a new trial and to vacate the judgment were denied, leading to her appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. While the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., which disapproved of the reasoning in Moniz II regarding Correa’s standing. The Court of Appeal concluded that Correa and her counsel lacked standing to challenge the judgment based on the Supreme Court's decision in Turrieta. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. View "Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Santa Ana Police Officers Association (SAPOA) and certain anonymous City of Santa Ana police officers (Doe Officers) sued the City of Santa Ana, alleging wrongful disclosure of confidential personnel records, failure to investigate a complaint about the disclosure, and denial of a request for related communications. The first amended complaint included four causes of action: violation of Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045, negligence, failure to investigate under Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7, and violation of the Meyers-Milias Brown Act (MMBA).The Superior Court of Orange County sustained the City’s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found that the Doe Officers could not proceed anonymously without statutory authority or court authorization. It also concluded that the SAPOA lacked standing and that there was no private right of action for the alleged violations of the Penal Code and Evidence Code sections cited.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the judgment as to the Doe Officers, agreeing they lacked authorization to proceed anonymously. It also affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the first, second, and fourth causes of action, finding no private right of action for damages under the cited statutes and that the SAPOA failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the MMBA claim. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment concerning the third cause of action, holding that the SAPOA had standing to seek mandamus relief to compel the City to investigate the complaint and notify the SAPOA of the disposition, as required by Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this cause of action. View "Santa Ana Police Officers Assn. v. City of Santa Ana" on Justia Law

Elijah Jackson, a Black man, was charged with carrying a loaded firearm after police found a handgun during a search of the car he was driving. Jackson filed a motion under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020, arguing that the police stopped and searched his car due to racial bias. The superior court denied his motion, stating that Jackson failed to establish a prima facie violation under the Racial Justice Act.The superior court found that the police officers were conducting a saturation patrol in a high-crime area and stopped Jackson for having illegally tinted windows. The officers observed Jackson and his brother, who were wearing clothing associated with gang members, and conducted a traffic stop. During the stop, the officers found a baseball bat in the car and, after a search, discovered an unregistered loaded firearm. Jackson argued that the stop and search were racially motivated, supported by statistical evidence showing racial disparities in traffic stops and searches by the San Diego Police Department (SDPD).The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that Jackson had produced facts that, if true, established a substantial likelihood of a violation of the Racial Justice Act. The court noted the statistical evidence showing racial disparities in SDPD's traffic stops and searches, as well as Jackson's and his brother's repeated stops for the same tinted windows without receiving citations. The court also considered the officers' focus on Jackson's and his brother's appearance and the neighborhood they were in, which suggested implicit bias.The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to grant an evidentiary hearing to consider Jackson's motion under the Racial Justice Act. The court emphasized the importance of addressing implicit bias in the criminal justice system and ensuring that race does not play a role in seeking or obtaining convictions. View "Jackson v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2018, Charles David Wilson was charged with 14 felony counts. In 2022, he pled no contest to one count of kidnapping, admitted to using a firearm, and acknowledged an aggravating factor. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the remaining charges and enhancements. Wilson received a 12-year prison sentence, consisting of an eight-year term for kidnapping and a four-year term for the firearm enhancement.Wilson later petitioned the trial court for resentencing under former section 1172.1, citing a new directive from the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office aimed at reducing reliance on enhancements and allegations. The directive suggested that prosecutors should generally not file or require defendants to plead to sentence enhancements and allowed for probation as the presumptive offer for certain felonies. However, the trial court determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Wilson’s petition because it had not recalled the sentence within 120 days of the original commitment, and Wilson did not have standing to file such a motion himself.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the directive from the district attorney’s office did not constitute a prosecutorial stipulation or recommendation for resentencing under section 1172.1. The court emphasized that internal directives do not create enforceable duties for prosecutors to recommend resentencing. Consequently, Wilson’s petition was deemed a defendant-initiated request for the court to exercise its own-motion jurisdiction, which the court lacked. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction to consider Wilson’s petition or any other arguments. View "People v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Attorney Barry Tarlow executed a will in 2005, with minor modifications in 2006, leaving his estate to be divided between his siblings, Barbara Tarlow Rapposelli and Gerald Tarlow. Gerald was to receive his share outright, while Barbara's share was to be placed in a trust, with David Henry Simon named as trustee. Barry Tarlow passed away in April 2021, and the will was admitted to probate in July 2021. Barbara and Gerald became executors of the estate, while Simon retained his role as trustee.Barbara and Gerald filed an ex parte petition in January 2022 to replace Simon as trustee and modify the trust terms, which was denied. They later filed a petition for final distribution of the estate in July 2022, stating that Barbara had disclaimed her share, leading to a redistribution of the estate. Simon objected, arguing that Barbara's disclaimer was improper and filed his own petition under section 11700, seeking distribution of Barbara's interest to him as trustee and to rescind Barbara's purchase of the Fidelity Fund's interest in the trust. The trial court sustained Barbara and Gerald's demurrer, ruling Simon lacked standing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that Simon, as the named trustee, had standing under section 11700 to file a petition for distribution of the estate. The court found that Simon's claim to the estate assets as trustee made him a person entitled to distribution under the statute. The court reversed the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with sections 11700 et seq. and the opinion. View "In re Estate of Tarlow" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Sabrina Zaragoza was admitted to Mercy Medical Center Merced with abdominal pain and later diagnosed with a bile leak. Dr. Nadir Adam performed a gallbladder removal surgery (cholecystectomy) on her. Following complications, including a bile leak and multiple subsequent surgeries, Zaragoza filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Adam and others, alleging negligence in her treatment.The San Francisco County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Adam. The court relied on the declaration of Dr. Eric Morse, a medical expert who reviewed Zaragoza's medical records and concluded that Dr. Adam performed the surgery within the standard of care and that the bile leak was a recognized risk of the procedure, not due to negligence. Dr. Morse also attributed Zaragoza's complications to a bowel perforation caused by a subsequent procedure performed by another doctor, Dr. Uppal. Zaragoza did not submit an opposing expert declaration.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the summary judgment. The appellate court found that Dr. Morse's declaration was conclusory and lacked a reasoned explanation for his opinions. Specifically, Dr. Morse did not adequately explain how he ruled out negligence by Dr. Adam or how he determined that the bile leak was not due to surgical error. The court emphasized that expert declarations must provide detailed factual bases and reasoned explanations to support their conclusions. The appellate court concluded that Dr. Adam failed to meet his initial burden of showing the absence of a triable issue of material fact and directed the trial court to deny the motion for summary judgment. View "Zaragoza v. Adam" on Justia Law

Thomas Armenta and Tiffini Pateras began their relationship in 2012 and had a child, M.A., in 2014. They separated in 2017 and entered a child custody and support agreement. Armenta, a Chumash descendant, works at the Chumash tribal office and earns $114,000 annually, plus $5,000 monthly from the Chumash tribe’s general welfare program. Pateras filed a petition for child support and attorney fees in 2023. The trial court ordered Armenta to pay $448 monthly for temporary child support and $2,000 in attorney fees. Subsequent hearings led to a final order for Armenta to pay $1,053 monthly in child support and $5,000 in need-based attorney fees.The trial court ruled that the $5,000 monthly payments Armenta receives from the Chumash tribe’s general welfare program should be considered as income for calculating child support. Armenta argued that these payments should be excluded as they are not subject to federal income taxation and claimed they were need-based public assistance. However, the court found no evidence that the payments were need-based or restricted to low-income individuals.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the payments from the Chumash tribe’s general welfare program are income for child support purposes, regardless of their tax status under federal law. The court emphasized that California’s child support statutes aim to ensure parents support their children according to their financial ability, and income is broadly defined to include various sources. The court also rejected Armenta’s claims regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing and the enforcement of a notice to appear, finding no procedural errors. The orders were affirmed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the respondents. View "Pateras v. Armenta" on Justia Law

J.B. (Minor) was placed with A.R. (De Facto Parent) for nearly two years after being removed from B.B. (Mother) and J.S. (Father). Parents filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking additional reunification services and increased visitation. The trial court granted these petitions but did not remove Minor from De Facto Parent's care. De Facto Parent appealed, arguing that the juvenile court should not have granted additional reunification services as Parents failed to show changed circumstances and that it was not in Minor’s best interest.The Superior Court of Riverside County granted the section 388 petitions, providing Parents with six months of reunification services and increased visitation. The court noted that Minor would remain with De Facto Parent for the time being, with the goal of eventually returning Minor to Parents. The section 366.26 hearing, which would address the termination of parental rights and adoption, was vacated.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court agreed with the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services that De Facto Parent did not have standing to appeal the grant of the section 388 petitions. The court noted that as a de facto parent, A.R. did not have the right to reunification services, visitation, custody, or placement of Minor. The appeal was dismissed for lack of standing. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

David Paul Planchard was convicted by a jury of stalking Debra Doe and violating a protective order. Planchard and Doe had a relationship from 1997 to 2000 and had a son together in 2006. Despite a restraining order issued in 2020, Planchard continued to harass Doe through public Facebook posts from 2016 to 2023. These posts included threats, derogatory comments, and references to Doe's past trauma. Planchard also showed up at Doe's house in May 2023, violating the protective order.The Superior Court of Sacramento County found Planchard guilty of stalking and violating a protective order. The jury determined that Planchard's actions, including his Facebook posts and visit to Doe's house, constituted a credible threat and harassment. The court sentenced him to five years for stalking and a stayed term of six months for violating the protective order.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. Planchard argued that his Facebook posts did not constitute direct contact and thus could not be considered harassment under the stalking statute. The court disagreed, citing precedent that indirect threats and harassment through third parties or public posts can still meet the statutory requirements for stalking. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, noting that the posts were intended to harass and threaten Doe, and it was reasonably foreseeable that she would see them.The court also addressed Planchard's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding no merit in his arguments. The court concluded that the Facebook posts were relevant and admissible, and that any failure to object by his counsel did not constitute ineffective assistance. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "P. v. Planchard" on Justia Law