Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Aquil Qadir Lawson, was convicted of murder after shooting Madison Rose Weiss while she was in her car. Lawson, who is Black, argued that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were influenced by implicit racial bias, violating the California Racial Justice Act of 2020. He claimed that the court's decisions emphasized his criminality while minimizing the victim's, who was white. Specifically, Lawson contended that the exclusion of evidence regarding Weiss's illegal activities and the inclusion of his Instagram posts and fraud activities demonstrated racial bias.In the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the jury found Lawson guilty of second-degree murder and the firearm allegation true. The court excluded evidence of Weiss's involvement in sex work, vaccination card fraud, and other illegal activities, deeming them irrelevant to the case. The court also excluded evidence of a gun found near the crime scene, as it was not connected to the shooting. Conversely, the court admitted Lawson's Instagram posts, which contained statements related to the shooting, and evidence of his involvement in fraud, which was used to impeach his credibility.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were based on relevance and did not demonstrate implicit racial bias under the Racial Justice Act's preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The appellate court found that the trial court's decisions were ordinary evidentiary rulings and that Lawson failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rulings were motivated by racial bias or animus. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "P. v. Lawson" on Justia Law

A bakery refused to sell a predesigned white cake to a same-sex couple for their wedding reception, citing a policy against providing cakes for same-sex weddings based on the owner's religious beliefs. The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple, alleging discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). The trial court ruled in favor of the bakery, finding no violation of the UCRA because the CRD failed to prove intentional discrimination and concluded that referring the couple to another bakery constituted full and equal access under the UCRA. The trial court also considered the bakery's First Amendment defenses, concluding that the UCRA compelled the bakery to speak a message about marriage to which they objected.The CRD appealed, challenging the trial court's interpretation and application of the UCRA and its conclusions regarding the bakery's affirmative defenses. The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and determined that the bakery's policy was not facially neutral and misconstrued the intentional discrimination standard. The court found that the policy was inherently discriminatory as it required a distinction in service based on the sexual orientation of the end user. The court also concluded that referring the couple to another bakery did not satisfy the UCRA's full and equal access requirement.The court further analyzed the bakery's First Amendment defenses, determining that the cake in question did not constitute pure speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court found that the cake was a generic, multi-purpose product and that its preparation and delivery did not convey any particularized message about marriage. Additionally, the court concluded that the UCRA is a neutral and generally applicable law that satisfies rational basis review and does not violate the bakery's free exercise of religion under the federal or state constitutions.The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations" on Justia Law

Officer Victor Quezada and his partner, Officer Diego Millan, were patrolling a known gang territory in Harbor City after dark. They encountered three young men, including L.G., who was 15 years old. Millan recognized one of the men as a gang member. The officers attempted to engage the group in conversation, but L.G. did not respond and avoided eye contact, which made the officers suspicious. They decided to conduct a search, and when they ordered the group to step out and raise their hands, L.G. ran and was later found with a gun.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled that the search was proper and denied L.G.'s motion to suppress the evidence. The court did not address the officers' commands to the youths during the encounter.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the search was improper because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain L.G. The court emphasized that nervousness and avoiding police interaction do not reasonably suggest criminal activity. The court found that the officers' commands and coordinated approach constituted a show of force that transformed a consensual encounter into a detention without proper justification.The court reversed the judgment, vacated the adjudication, and remanded the matter. The trial court was instructed to vacate its order denying L.G.'s motion to suppress the evidence and to enter a new order granting the motion. View "In re L.G." on Justia Law

Mariano Albert Valdez was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for a murder he committed at age 17. In 2018, Valdez petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1), which allows juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP to seek resentencing after 15 years of incarceration. The trial court granted the petition and resentenced Valdez to 50 years to life. In 2024, Valdez filed another petition for resentencing, arguing that his 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP, citing People v. Heard, which held that denying resentencing relief to juvenile offenders sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP violates equal protection.The trial court construed Valdez's filing as a petition under section 1170(d)(10), which allows for resentencing after 20 years of imprisonment if the defendant was resentenced to LWOP or its functional equivalent. The trial court granted the petition, reasoning that Valdez's 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP and that excluding him from resentencing relief would violate equal protection.The People petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to deny Valdez's resentencing relief. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the reasoning in Heard does not apply to section 1170(d)(10) if the defendant was eligible for youth offender parole under the sentence imposed at resentencing under section 1170(d)(1). Since Valdez was eligible for youth offender parole under his 50-year-to-life sentence, it was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. Therefore, Valdez was not entitled to relief under section 1170(d)(10).The court granted the petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting Valdez resentencing relief and to enter a new order denying the petition for resentencing. View "P. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Deari Cole was committed to a developmental center under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, which allows for the commitment of individuals with developmental disabilities who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. Cole was charged with several crimes and found incompetent to stand trial. Subsequently, he was committed to the Porterville Developmental Center for one year. Just before the expiration of his commitment, the People filed a petition to extend it, and Cole was held pending trial on the recommitment petition. Cole filed a petition for writ of mandate or habeas corpus, arguing that equal protection principles required his release pending trial.The Contra Costa County Superior Court denied Cole's request for release pending trial, relying on section 6506, which allows for interim placement at a suitable facility. Cole's petition for writ of mandate or habeas corpus was summarily denied by the Court of Appeal. Cole then petitioned for review, and the California Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeal to vacate its order and issue an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and rejected Cole's equal protection arguments. The court held that the statutory scheme under section 6500, which allows for continued confinement pending a hearing on a recommitment petition, did not violate equal protection principles. The court reasoned that the differences between individuals with developmental disabilities and those with mental health disorders or found not guilty by reason of insanity justified the different procedures. The court concluded that the legislative distinctions were reasonable and factually based. Consequently, the court dismissed Cole's petition as moot, as he had already been released from custody for unrelated reasons. View "Cole v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2010, Juan Nuno was prosecuted and later pleaded no contest to attempted murder, admitting to several sentence-related allegations. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. In 2022, Nuno filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6, which the trial court found made a prima facie case for an evidentiary hearing. Nuno then filed a motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records, seeking exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland and through Pitchess procedures. The trial court ordered limited disclosure of personnel information after an in-camera review but later denied Nuno’s petition after the evidentiary hearing.Nuno appealed, requesting the appellate court to review the trial court’s application of Pitchess standards. The Attorney General did not initially object to this request. The appellate court sought supplemental briefing on whether the trial court’s review should include Brady principles and whether Brady obligations apply in section 1172.6 proceedings. Both parties agreed that Nuno’s request encompassed Brady principles.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, decided that a petitioner may obtain disclosure of peace officer personnel information under Brady principles through Pitchess procedures in advance of a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Pitchess principles but did not clearly consider Brady principles. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally reversed the trial court’s order denying Nuno’s petition and remanded for further proceedings to ensure compliance with Brady principles. If additional information is found to be discoverable under Brady, the trial court must allow Nuno to demonstrate prejudice and potentially order a new evidentiary hearing. View "People v. Nuno" on Justia Law

The defendant, Freddy Rivera Corbi, was bullied by gang members in his community for years. In July 2019, he was seriously injured by a gang member. A month later, Corbi encountered another gang member, Lazaro Orozco, and fatally shot him after an argument. At trial, the main issue was whether the shooting was in self-defense or an act of revenge. The jury convicted Corbi of second-degree murder.The Superior Court of San Diego County reviewed the case. Corbi argued that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution’s gang expert to offer certain opinions and that the prosecutor violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 during closing arguments. He also claimed the court erred in considering whether to dismiss a firearm enhancement at sentencing. The trial court imposed a sentence of 15 years to life for the murder, plus 10 years for a reduced firearm enhancement.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court found no reversible error regarding the expert testimony, determining that the gang expert’s opinions were not speculative and did not prejudice the jury’s decision. The court also held that Corbi forfeited his Racial Justice Act claim by failing to raise it in the trial court. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court properly imposed the firearm enhancement, as it had discretion to impose or dismiss the enhancement and had considered the relevant mitigating factors. The judgment was affirmed. View "P. v. Corbi" on Justia Law

Khyle Armando Briscoe, at age 21, participated in a robbery during which his accomplice, Shaun P., was fatally shot by the victim, Ben P. Briscoe was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary, with a special circumstance finding under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d), which led to a life without parole sentence. This special circumstance applies to non-killer participants in felonies who act with reckless indifference to human life.The trial court sentenced Briscoe to life without parole, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. Briscoe later sought a parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051, which allows certain youth offenders to seek parole but excludes those sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder. The trial court denied his motion, and Briscoe appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court noted that section 3051 was intended to provide youth offenders with a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated growth and rehabilitation. However, the statute excludes youth offenders sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder. Briscoe argued that this exclusion violated equal protection, particularly because section 190.2, subdivision (d) employs the same standard of liability as section 189, subdivision (e)(3), which does not exclude youth offenders from parole consideration.The Court of Appeal agreed with Briscoe, finding that the exclusion of youth offenders sentenced under section 190.2, subdivision (d) from parole consideration under section 3051 violated equal protection. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for a parole hearing and related proceedings. View "P. v. Briscoe" on Justia Law

Two defendants, Martin Field and John Asher, were found to be sexually violent predators (SVPs) by separate juries and committed indefinitely to a state hospital. They were compelled to testify against themselves during their commitment trials. Both argued on appeal that they were similarly situated to individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGIs), who are not required to testify against themselves at their commitment trials. They claimed this disparity violated equal protection principles.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, previously found merit in Field's equal protection argument and remanded the case to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County for an evidentiary hearing. The same conclusion was reached for Asher's case by Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and determined that the People had not met their burden to justify the disparate treatment of SVPs and NGIs. Consequently, the court concluded that equal protection principles were violated and ordered new commitment trials for both Field and Asher.The People appealed the new trial orders, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the disparate treatment of SVPs was not justified. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's orders. The appellate court held that the People had not demonstrated that the testimony of SVPs was more necessary than that of NGIs to justify the disparate treatment under the strict scrutiny standard. The court emphasized that there were sufficient records and other means to evaluate SVPs without compelling their testimony, and thus, the equal protection violation was not justified. View "P. v. Field" on Justia Law

Appellant M.T., a transgender woman, petitioned to legally change her name and gender in 2017, which was granted by the Stanislaus Superior Court in 2018. In 2023, M.T. requested the court to seal the entire record of her name change and gender marker correction, citing harassment and threats after being "outed" on social media. The trial court denied the request to seal the entire record but sealed the application to seal, its supporting documentation, and a physician's letter attached to the initial petition.The trial court found that M.T. had not shown an overriding interest that would overcome the right of public access to the records. The court noted that California's liberal name change policy presumes name changes should be public to prevent fraud and ensure creditors and others can locate individuals who have changed their names. The court also found insufficient evidence that the harassment M.T. experienced was directly linked to the public availability of her court records.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that M.T. had demonstrated an overriding privacy and safety interest in sealing her records. The court found that the harassment and threats M.T. experienced were likely linked to the public availability of her records and that there was a substantial probability of future harm if the records remained unsealed. The appellate court determined that M.T.'s privacy and safety interests outweighed the public's right of access to the records and that sealing the entire record was necessary to protect those interests.The appellate court reversed the trial court's order denying the request to seal the entire record and remanded the case with instructions to seal all records that reveal M.T.'s name change or gender marker correction. View "In re M.T." on Justia Law