Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Harquan Johnson and KeAndre Windfield of first degree murder, intentionally discharging a firearm causing death, and personally discharging a firearm causing death. Furthermore, the jury convicted defendants of attempted premeditated and deliberate murder, during which they personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury, and used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. Johnson and Windfield were members of the Ramona Blocc Hustla gang; an altercation between Johnson, Windfield and the victims gave rise to murder and weapons charges. As to both offenses, the jury found that defendants committed them for the benefit of the gang. Both were sentenced to prison for 90 years to life. They appealed, claiming the preliminary hearing testimony of a prosecution witness should not have been admitted into evidence at trial, the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions of attempted murder, and the jury was misinstructed. Defendants also claimed that the firearms allegation findings as to the attempted murder should have been stricken. Upon review, the Court of Appeal agreed in part and directed some to be stricken. Both defendants also asserted that the abstracts of judgment should have been corrected. The Court agreed with this, and directed the trial court to correct Windfield’s, and, upon the resentencing of Johnson, to ensure that his abstract and the minutes of the hearing correctly reflect the year the crimes were committed and the award of pretrial custody credit. Each defendant claimed that the sentence imposed upon him, without consideration of his individual characteristics, was a violation of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. To this, the Court disagreed as to Windfield and agreed as to Johnson. Therefore, the Court affirmed Windfield’s judgment except as to a few corrections. As to Johnson, the Court affirmed his convictions and remanded to the sentencing court for resentencing. View "California v. Windfield" on Justia Law

Sacramento Police received a call from Kennedy High School that there was "an uncontrollable, irate student in the hallways." While in the principal's office, the minor called his mother; he became more and more irate as he talked, "screaming [and] yelling" and pacing the floor. The responding officer asked the minor to sit down and calm down, but the minor did not listen. The minor slammed or threw the phone down on the table. About three to five seconds after the minor failed to obey the order to sit down and calm down, the officer detained him "based on [the officer's] safety and safety of the school and also the [minor]'s." The officer advised the minor he was being detained and ordered him to put his hands on his head with his fingers interlaced. In an attempt to put a control hold on the minor by grabbing the minor's interlaced hands with one hand and grabbing the minor's elbow from underneath with the other hand, the minor turned, pulled away, and started to walk away. The officer performed an arm bar takedown on the minor and detained him on the floor; he then handcuffed him and took him out to his squad car. After obtaining briefing from the parties on the legal and factual issues, the juvenile court issued a ruling sustaining both charges. As to the resisting charge, the court found that the minor's conduct before his detention was sufficient to justify the detention. The minor appealed the order of the juvenile court declaring him a ward of the court, arguing that one of the two allegations the court sustained was supported by sufficient evidence and that the other was founded on an unconstitutional statute. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

In 2011, Wells Fargo foreclosed on the plaintiffs’ residential mortgage loan and purchased their home at a trustee sale conducted by First American. Plaintiffs sued, alleging, that defendants violated their deed of trust’s incorporation of a pre-foreclosure meeting requirement contained in National Housing Act (NHA) regulations and the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The trial court sustained demurrers and denied a preliminary injunction. The court of appeal reversed, finding that plaintiffs pled viable causes of action for equitable cancellation of the trustee’s deed obtained by Wells Fargo based on their allegation that Wells Fargo did not comply with the NHA requirements incorporated into the deed of trust. Because compliance was a condition precedent to the accrual of Wells Fargo’s contractual authority to foreclose on the property, if, as plaintiffs allege, the sale was conducted without such authority, it is either void or voidable by a court sitting in equity. Whether void or voidable, plaintiffs were not required to allege tender of the delinquent amount owed View "Fonteno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The defendants were charged with violations of the California False Claims Act (CFCA) arising out of their alleged business practice of inflating the credit ratings of various structured finance securities. Defendants moved to strike the CFCA causes of action under section 425.16, subdivision (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. The superior court denied the motion, holding that the enforcement action was exempt from the special motion to strike procedure pursuant to section 425.16, subdivision (d), which provides that “This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.” The court of appeal dismissed, concluding that the order is not appealable.View "People v. McGraw-Hill Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Father appealed from the order adjudicating his son a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code 300(b) and (g) and the ensuing disposition order. The court concluded that there was no evidence that, at the time of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Father was unwilling to provide the son with the necessities of life. Therefore, there was no evidence to support the finding of jurisdiction under section 300(b) based on Father's alleged failure to support. The court also concluded that, even if the juvenile court found that giving custody of the son to Father was not in the son's best interest, there was no evidence that Father could not make other arrangements for the son's care, including with the paternal grandmother who already had an established relationship with the son, or even with the maternal grandmother with whom the son was already placed. That placing the son with Father might not yet (or ever) be in the son's best interest, is not relevant to the only issue under section 300(g) - whether Father was able to arrange for the son's care at the time of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing. Accordingly, the court reversed the dispositional order and remanded for a new hearing. View "In re Christopher M." on Justia Law

A 17-month-old Indian child was removed from the custody of her mother, who has a lengthy substance abuse problem and has lost custody of at least six other children, and her father, who has an extensive criminal history and has lost custody of one other child. This case involves the placement preferences set forth in the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. The court concluded that the trial court correctly required that the foster parents demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there was good cause to depart from the ICWA's placement preferences. However, the trial court's application of the good cause exception to the facts before it was legally erroneous and the error was prejudicial to the foster parents. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "In re Alexandria P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) initiated eminent domain proceedings to condemn an easement for electric transmission lines across the property of defendants Arnold and Valerie Schmidt and Luis Naranjo after the parties could not agree on an appropriate valuation for the property. Agreeing with defendants' experts that an open-pit mining operation was the "highest and best use" for the land, the jury valued the property at about $8 million. SDG&E appealed, contending the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict. SDG&E also contends it was entitled to a new trial because the trial court abused its discretion: (1) in limiting the cross-examination of defendants' appraisal expert and (2) allowing the appraiser to testify in violation of Evidence Code section 819. Defendants cross-appealed, asserting the trial court erred in denying their request for litigation expenses under Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410. The Court of Appeal rejected SDG&E's arguments and affirmed the judgment and order denying JNOV. The Court reversed the order denying defendants' motion for litigation expenses. View "San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

M.G. was charged in a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 with felony carrying of a concealed firearm on his person. After the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, M.G. entered an admission he committed the charged offense, but declined to stipulate the offense was a felony rather than a wobbler. The trial court rejected his argument, declared a wardship, and placed M.G. with his parent subject to conditions of probation. The court of appeal reversed and remanded for proceedings to determine whether M.G. is suitable for deferred entry of judgment and, if not, whether the offense is a felony or misdemeanor. View "In re M.G." on Justia Law

The City and County of San Francisco approved the Parkmerced Development Project, which involves the long-term redevelopment of the privately owned, 3,221-unit residential rental complex on152 acres near Lake Merced, which were built as affordable housing. The Project contemplates demolition and, over 20-30 years, construction of a greater number of residential units, some affordable and some market-rate, and the addition of commercial and retail space, parks and open space, and transit facilities, with improved utilities. Objectors claimed that the Land Use Element of the San Francisco General Plan was inadequate for failing to include standards for population density and building intensity (Gov. Code, 6302, subds. (a), (b).) (2); that the project and the various approvals were inconsistent with the “priority policies” and other policies of the General Plan; that an environmental impact report (EIR) and findings underlying the City’s approval of the project were inadequate under standards established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000); and violation of its due process rights. The trial court rejected the challenges. The court of appeal affirmed. View "San Francisco Tomorrow v. City & County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for violating Penal Code section 290.011(b), failure to register as a transient sex offender. The court concluded that the homeless shelter defendant frequented, a National Guard Armory emergency winter shelter - was a residence within the meaning of the statute where the shelter could be located by address. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "People v. Deluca" on Justia Law