Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A public hospital district in California established and recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in 1991 for a common interest development known as the Tulare Medical Center. These CC&Rs included a prohibition on abortion clinics within the development. In 2001, certain property subject to these CC&Rs was transferred to individual owners, who later sought to lease it to a family planning organization that provides a range of services, including abortion. The property owners association, comprised of all parcel owners and authorized to enforce the CC&Rs, objected to the lease and sought to enjoin the operation of the clinic, arguing that any abortion services would violate the CC&Rs.The Superior Court of Tulare County reviewed the association’s request for a preliminary injunction. After considering the parties’ submissions and arguments, the court denied the injunction. The court found there was a credible threat that abortion services would be provided but concluded the association had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Specifically, the trial court noted unresolved legal questions regarding whether restrictions on abortion clinics in CC&Rs violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California constitutional protections, and found the association failed to demonstrate that the balance of harms favored an injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the prohibition on abortion clinics, adopted by a public entity, constituted government action that interfered with the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive choice under the California Constitution. The court applied the compelling interest test, found no compelling interest justifying the restriction, and concluded the prohibition violated fundamental public policy. Additionally, the court held that the prohibition was void under Civil Code section 53 because it indirectly limited property use based on a characteristic protected by the Unruh Act. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Tulare Medical Center Property v. Valdivia" on Justia Law

Two men approached a van in a Denny’s parking lot in Los Angeles in the early morning hours of December 19, 1981. One of the men, holding a gun, demanded valuables from the occupants, Toney Lewis and Carolyn Spence. After robbing them, the gunman shot Lewis, who died from the wound. At trial, there was conflicting eyewitness identification as to whether the defendant or his brother was the shooter. An accomplice, who testified in exchange for a plea deal, stated that the defendant was the gunman and shot Lewis. Other witnesses recounted statements by the defendant suggesting his brother was not the killer and that he was the one who shot Lewis.The defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of murder, robbery, and attempted robbery, with the jury finding true that a principal was armed with a firearm but not true that the defendant personally used a firearm or that the robbery special circumstance (which, as instructed, required the defendant to have personally killed the victim) applied. On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Subsequently, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly 1170.95), which provides relief for certain felony-murder convictions. The resentencing court initially denied relief, finding the defendant aided and abetted the murder. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, instructing reconsideration under the theories that the defendant was either the actual killer or a major participant acting with reckless indifference.In the most recent proceeding, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, held that the jury’s not-true findings on the firearm enhancement and special circumstance did not preclude the resentencing court from finding the defendant was the actual killer. The court found substantial evidence supported that finding and affirmed the denial of resentencing. View "People v. Player" on Justia Law

Two married tenured professors at California State University, Chico alleged that they were subjected to harassment and discrimination by their department chair, with one professor experiencing conduct targeted at her gender and Korean ancestry. Despite their reports to university administration, the university did not intervene. As a result, one professor suffered serious mental health consequences, leading their doctor to recommend that she not work in the same environment as the chair. The university’s lack of response allegedly forced both professors to resign and accept positions at another university. After their resignation, the university initiated an investigation into one professor for an alleged violation of student privacy laws and communicated these allegations to the new employer, which the professors claimed was intended to sabotage their new employment. There were also alleged delays in transferring their lab equipment.The professors filed suit in the Superior Court of Butte County, asserting, among other claims, retaliation and whistleblower retaliation under California law. The university filed a special motion to strike these two causes of action under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the claims were based in part on communications protected by the statute. The trial court denied the motion, finding the university’s actions involved an official proceeding but also concluding that the professors demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on their claims.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court held that the university failed to carry its burden to show that all actions underlying the challenged causes of action were protected activity. The court clarified that the presence of some protected communications within the allegations does not mean the entire cause of action arises from protected activity. The judgment denying the anti-SLAPP motion was therefore affirmed. View "Pechkis v. Trustees of the Cal. State University" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute between a city and a civil liberties organization regarding public access to police records under the California Public Records Act. The organization submitted a request for records related to police K-9 use-of-force incidents, specifically seeking documents involving incidents resulting in “death or great bodily injury.” The city produced some records but withheld or redacted others, asserting that only records involving “serious bodily injury” as narrowly defined should be disclosed. The central disagreement focused on the meaning of “great bodily injury” in the statutory context.After the city maintained its position, the organization challenged the city’s interpretation in the Superior Court of Fresno County. The court did not decide whether the documents were investigatory records but instead ruled on the meaning of “great bodily injury.” It concluded that the term should be understood as “a significant or substantial physical injury,” consistent with the definition in Penal Code section 12022.7, rather than the narrower definition of “serious bodily injury” found elsewhere. The court therefore ordered the city to produce records involving any deployment of a police canine that resulted in great bodily injury, as so defined.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the city’s petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court agreed with the superior court, holding that the term “great bodily injury” in Penal Code section 832.7 should be construed in accordance with section 12022.7, meaning “a significant or substantial physical injury.” The court found no ambiguity in the statutory language, rejected the city’s alternative arguments, and concluded that the legislative history supported this broader interpretation. The court denied the city’s petition, affirmed the order for disclosure, and awarded costs to the organization. View "City of Fresno v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2000, Tommie Lawson Lynex, an African American man, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and received a firearm enhancement under California Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d), resulting in a sentence of 50 years to life. Twenty years later, California enacted the Racial Justice Act, allowing prisoners to seek habeas relief if their conviction or sentence was influenced by race, ethnicity, or national origin. Lynex filed a habeas petition under this Act, including statistical evidence showing racial disparities in the prosecution of murder charges with firearm enhancements in Los Angeles County.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially denied Lynex’s habeas petition and his request for appointment of counsel, finding the petition procedurally barred as successive and concluding that Lynex had not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the Racial Justice Act. The court also determined that Lynex did not sufficiently allege facts indicating racial animus or bias in the police investigation or prosecution.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by requiring a prima facie showing for appointment of counsel. Under the Racial Justice Act and section 1473, subdivision (e), a petitioner need only plead a plausible allegation of a violation to obtain counsel. The appellate court also found that the trial court erred by not recognizing its discretion to permit amendment of the petition and by improperly invoking procedural bars at the initial stage. The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its denial and conduct further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re Lynex" on Justia Law

A.B., a 42-year-old individual with a longstanding diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, had been receiving mental health services in San Francisco since 2008, including numerous psychiatric hospitalizations and crisis interventions. He was previously under conservatorship, which ensured compliance with medication, but historically disengaged from treatment and decompensated when conservatorship ended. In October 2023, following a psychiatric incident at home involving paranoia and disruptive behavior, A.B. was hospitalized. His mother, who provided housing, testified to his history of aggression and repeated decompensation when not medicated, stating she would not allow him to live with her absent a conservatorship and mandatory medication order.The San Francisco County Superior Court initially appointed the public conservator and imposed an involuntary medication order. After a mistrial in April 2023, the parties resolved the matter by conservatorship without a medication order, but following further decompensation, the conservator sought renewal with an involuntary medication order. At the 2025 court trial, testimony from A.B.’s mother and treating psychiatrist indicated that A.B. lacked insight into his illness, would not reliably take medication without a legal mandate, and was unable to maintain shelter independently. Although A.B. testified that he now recognized his diagnosis and would comply with medication, the court credited the testimony of his mother and psychiatrist over his own.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that A.B. was presently gravely disabled due to his mental disorder and unable to provide for his own shelter without medication, which he would not take absent a court order. The appellate court also affirmed the finding that A.B. was incompetent to give or withhold informed consent for psychotropic medication. The orders renewing the conservatorship and involuntary medication were affirmed. View "Conservatorship of A.B." on Justia Law

The case centers on Taiwan Orran Reed, who was convicted by a jury in August 2020 of multiple offenses, including pimping, pandering, human trafficking, and rape involving two victims. The jury also found special circumstances under California’s one strike law, resulting in Reed’s sentence of 21 years four months in prison, plus 30 years to life. Reed, who is African American, later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Riverside County Superior Court, seeking relief under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020. He alleged that racially discriminatory language—specifically being referred to as a “gorilla pimp”—was used by the prosecutor and expert law enforcement witnesses during his trial.After Reed’s retained counsel withdrew due to personal reasons and lack of payment, the superior court appointed the Riverside County Public Defender to represent Reed at an evidentiary hearing on his habeas petition. The Public Defender objected to the appointment, arguing that under Government Code section 27706, subdivision (g), his office has discretionary authority to decline representation in postconviction habeas matters, unlike mandatory representation required in trial proceedings under subdivision (a). The trial court disagreed and compelled the Public Defender to accept the appointment, finding that the Public Defender had not demonstrated unavailability.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, granted the Public Defender’s petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court held that section 27706(g) governs public defenders’ representation of habeas petitioners, granting them discretion to decline such appointments without a showing of unavailability. The trial court’s order compelling the Public Defender to represent Reed was vacated, and the superior court was directed to appoint alternate counsel for Reed’s habeas petition. View "Harmon v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Enrique Aguilar was involved in a shootout with San Diego Police Department officers after leading one officer on a foot chase during which he brandished a gun. Although Aguilar was wounded, none of the officers were hit, and a bullet fired from Aguilar’s direction struck a nearby store door. Aguilar was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted voluntary manslaughter, assaulting peace officers with a semiautomatic firearm, shooting at an occupied building, possessing methamphetamine while armed, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial in September 2023, a jury convicted him of all charges and the court sentenced him to a lengthy prison term.During jury selection in the Superior Court of San Diego County, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike a Latina juror (Juror 1), claiming she struggled to understand the concept of intent, as revealed by her responses to a hypothetical question. Aguilar objected, arguing that the prosecutor was improperly excluding Hispanic and Latina jurors. The trial court accepted the prosecutor’s explanation, found Juror 1’s answers equivocal and overruled Aguilar’s objection, determining that ethnicity was not a factor in the challenge.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the denial of Aguilar’s objection de novo, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. The appellate court found no substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Juror 1 was confused about intent; her answers were clear and consistent. The court held that “juror confusion” is a presumptively invalid reason for a peremptory challenge under section 231.7, and that the prosecution failed to rebut this presumption. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "P. v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

An inmate serving an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life for first degree murder challenged the calculation of the timing for his initial youth offender parole hearing. His main contention was that under California law, youth offenders like himself should be entitled to the same categories of prison conduct credits to advance their parole hearing date as are available to other indeterminately sentenced inmates. Specifically, he argued that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) unfairly limited the use of credit categories for youth offenders, allowing only educational merit credits (EMCs) to count towards advancing the youth parole eligible date (YPED), while non-youth inmates could use a broader range of credits to accelerate their minimum eligible parole date (MEPD).The Marin County Superior Court previously denied his habeas petition. After the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, with instructions to issue an order to show cause, the matter was reconsidered. The focus of the appeal was whether the CDCR’s regulations violated statutory or constitutional rights by distinguishing between youth and non-youth offenders in the application of parole-advancing credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that the CDCR’s distinction did not violate statutory or constitutional principles. The court found that the regulatory scheme giving only EMCs to youth offenders for YPED calculations, while affording more credit categories for MEPD calculations for other inmates, was rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives, including administrative efficiency and the structure of the youth parole scheme. The court also rejected due process and equal protection arguments, applying rational basis review, and concluded that the distinction was constitutionally permissible. The petition for habeas corpus relief was denied and the petition discharged. View "In re Thai" on Justia Law

A disabled individual, who uses a wheelchair, visited a toy store owned by a business entity in Los Angeles. He claimed that the sales counter was too high for him to use comfortably, allegedly deterring him from making a purchase. The individual subsequently filed lawsuits under both federal and state law, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The federal court dismissed the ADA claim as moot after the store remedied the alleged violation, and the state court tried the Unruh Act claim. During trial, the plaintiff testified about his intent to shop and the difficulties encountered, but the store presented evidence that no such customer was seen and that employees would have greeted him.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over the state Unruh Act action. The judge found the plaintiff's testimony not credible, determining that he entered the store solely to look for ADA violations rather than to shop, and did not suffer any difficulty or denial of access. Judgment was entered for the store, and the plaintiff did not appeal. The store then filed a malicious prosecution action against the plaintiff and his attorneys, alleging they pursued claims knowing essential facts refuted their allegations. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had probable cause and acted without malice. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, declining to apply issue preclusion to the prior judge’s factual findings.Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, held that the prior judge’s findings regarding the plaintiff’s intentions and actions were entitled to preclusive effect and sufficient to raise triable issues of fact about probable cause and malice as to the plaintiff. However, the appellate court found no similar evidence against the attorneys, as they relied on information provided by the plaintiff. The judgment was reversed as to the plaintiff and affirmed as to the attorneys. View "Landis' Labyrinth v. Whitaker" on Justia Law