Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The defendant was arrested on October 2, 2021, for misdemeanor driving under the influence and was released after signing a citation promising to appear in court on December 14, 2021. The Riverside County District Attorney filed a misdemeanor complaint on November 17, 2021. The defendant failed to appear on the scheduled date, resulting in a bench warrant for her arrest. After a subsequent stop and another citation, she failed to appear again, leading to another bench warrant. In March 2024, the defendant voluntarily contacted the court, had her matters calendared, and pled not guilty. She later filed a motion to dismiss, arguing her Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated due to delays.The Riverside County Superior Court denied the motion, finding the defendant’s own failures to appear contributed to the delay. The defendant then sought review by petitioning the Appellate Division of the Riverside County Superior Court. The Appellate Division, in a divided opinion, held that the prosecution’s failure to file a formal complaint within 25 days as required by Penal Code section 853.6 deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction and automatically relieved the defendant of any obligation to appear. Based on this, it ordered the trial court to vacate its order and reconsider the motion to dismiss.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision. It held the lower court had abused its discretion by misinterpreting Penal Code section 853.6. The Court of Appeal clarified that the failure to file charges within 25 days did not relieve a defendant of the obligation to appear or deprive the court of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court issued a writ directing the Appellate Division to vacate its opinion and reconsider the defendant’s writ petition consistent with this interpretation. View "People v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Several individuals who were employed by the City and County of San Francisco and were at least 40 years old when hired brought a class action lawsuit alleging that the City’s method for calculating disability retirement benefits under its retirement system discriminated against employees based on age. The system employs two formulas; Formula 1 is used if it yields a benefit exceeding a percentage threshold, while Formula 2 is used if the threshold is not met. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2, which imputes years of service until age 60, resulted in lower benefits for those who entered the retirement system at age 40 or older, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).After initial proceedings in the San Francisco City and County Superior Court—including a demurrer sustained on statute of limitations grounds and subsequent reversal by the Court of Appeal—the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting FEHA claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact, as well as claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and equal protection violations. The trial court certified a class and denied summary judgment due to triable issues of fact. A bench trial followed, where both parties presented expert testimony on whether Formula 2 disparately impacted older employees.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s findings. It affirmed the judgment, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not by age, and that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient as it was based on hypothetical calculations rather than actual data. The trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint after trial was also upheld, as any alleged error was not reversible on the record. The judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

A law enforcement agency served an electronic service provider with a search warrant for data associated with an email account belonging to a university graduate student under investigation for rape. The warrant was accompanied by a nondisclosure order (NDO) prohibiting the provider from notifying the student or anyone at the university about the warrant for 90 days. The provider did not contest the restriction against notifying the account holder but sought permission to inform a trusted contact at the university about the warrant's existence, citing concerns under the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) and the First Amendment.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed a sealed affidavit and found that several statutory criteria for “adverse results” under CalECPA were present, justifying the NDO. When the provider requested to modify the order to allow notification of a university contact, the court considered the proposal but ultimately declined after law enforcement objected, noting the court lacked jurisdiction over the university and could not ensure compliance with the NDO. The order was extended once and later lifted after the target was arrested. The provider’s initial petition for writ of mandate was summarily denied by the California Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court then granted review and transferred the matter back to the appellate court for further consideration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and held that the trial court made the required findings under CalECPA before issuing the NDO and that the NDO did not violate the provider’s First Amendment rights. The court found the NDO served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation. The petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

The petitioner is an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life for first degree murder, who challenged the timing of his initial youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051. His main contention was that, under regulations adopted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) following Proposition 57 and Assembly Bill 965, only educational merit credits are counted toward advancing his youth parole eligible date (YPED), whereas a wider range of credits—including good conduct, milestone completion, rehabilitative achievement, and extraordinary conduct credits—may be applied to advance the minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for other indeterminately sentenced inmates. The petitioner claimed this distinction deprived him of thousands of days of credit and delayed his parole hearing compared to similarly situated inmates.Previously, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District summarily denied the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. The California Supreme Court then granted review, transferring the case back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to issue an order to show cause and reconsider the petitioner’s claims.Upon review, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District considered both statutory and constitutional arguments, including equal protection and due process claims. The court applied rational basis review to the equal protection claim, emphasizing the deferential standard and the need for a rational relationship between the regulatory distinction and a legitimate state interest. The court concluded that limiting credits for youth offender parole hearings to educational merit credits serves administrative and operational needs, promoting certainty and stability in scheduling, and is rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives. The court found no merit to the statutory, equal protection, or due process challenges and denied habeas corpus relief, discharging the petition. View "In re Thai" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in 2003 of voluntary manslaughter, robbery, possession of a firearm, and received various sentence enhancements, including a prior strike, a firearm enhancement, and seven prior prison term enhancements, resulting in a sentence of 42 years and four months. Two restitution fines of $5,000 each were also imposed. In 2023, following legislative changes, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified the defendant as eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, which invalidated certain prior prison term enhancements. The defendant sought to have those enhancements stricken and also requested further modifications, including striking the prior strike and firearm enhancement, and imposing a lesser term for the manslaughter conviction.At the Superior Court of Sacramento County, during the resentencing hearing held in October 2024, the court struck the seven prior prison term enhancements, reducing the sentence to 35 years and four months. However, the court declined to strike the prior strike and firearm enhancement, and reimposed the original restitution fines and victim restitution. The updated abstract of judgment noted the restitution fines were “stayed.” The defendant appealed, raising constitutional and statutory challenges to the reimposition of the upper term, the denial of his request to strike the firearm enhancement under section 1385, and the continued imposition of the restitution fine.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that the trial court did not err by reimposing the upper term for voluntary manslaughter without requiring new findings of aggravating circumstances under amended section 1170, subdivision (b), because section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) exempts previously imposed upper terms from these requirements. The court also found no abuse of discretion or statutory error in declining to dismiss the firearm enhancement, as no applicable mitigating factors were established. However, the court concluded that the restitution fine originally imposed in 2003 must be vacated under section 1465.9, as more than ten years had elapsed. The judgment was affirmed as modified to vacate the restitution fine. View "P. v. Salstrom" on Justia Law

Disney Platform Distribution, BAMTech, and Hulu, subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, provide video streaming services to subscribers in the City of Santa Barbara. In 2022, the City’s Tax Administrator notified these companies that they had failed to collect and remit video users’ taxes under Ordinance 5471 for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, resulting in substantial assessments. The companies appealed to the City Administrator, and a retired Associate Justice served as hearing officer, ultimately upholding the Tax Administrator’s decision.Following the administrative appeal, the companies sought judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The trial court denied their petition, finding that the Ordinance does apply to video streaming services and rejecting arguments that the Ordinance violated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The trial court also found there was no violation of Public Utilities Code section 799’s notice requirements, as the City’s actions did not constitute a change in the tax base or adoption of a new tax.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Ordinance applies to video streaming services, interpreting the term “channel” in its ordinary, non-technical sense and finding that the voters intended technological neutrality. The court further held that the Ordinance does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act because video streaming subscriptions and DVD sales/rentals are not “similar” under the Act. Additionally, the court concluded the tax is not a content-based regulation of speech under the First Amendment, and that delayed enforcement did not constitute a tax increase requiring additional voter approval or notice under the California Constitution or Public Utilities Code section 799. View "Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

In this case, two federally recognized tribes in Madera County, California, were involved in a dispute over the authorization of a casino. One tribe, North Fork, sought to build and operate a large off-reservation casino on a 305-acre site near State Route 99. To do so, North Fork obtained a favorable “two-part determination” from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, followed by a concurrence from the Governor of California, and the negotiation of a tribal-state compact. The compact was ratified by the Legislature. However, a statewide referendum (Proposition 48) resulted in California voters rejecting the ratification statute. The other tribe, Picayune-Chukchansi, which operated its own on-reservation casino, challenged the validity of the Governor’s concurrence, arguing it was rendered void by the voters’ rejection.Prior to this appeal, the matter was litigated in multiple forums. In the Madera County Superior Court, Picayune-Chukchansi sought declaratory relief to have the Governor’s concurrence declared void ab initio. Proceedings were stayed pending appellate decisions in related cases, including United Auburn Indian Community of Auburn Rancheria v. Newsom by the California Supreme Court, which recognized the Governor’s implied authority to concur, and Stand Up for California! v. State of California (Stand Up II) by the Court of Appeal, which held that the people retained the power to annul the Governor’s concurrence through a referendum. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Picayune-Chukchansi, declaring the Governor’s concurrence void from the outset.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the people of California, by rejecting Proposition 48, exercised their retained power to annul the Governor’s concurrence, and that this annulment rendered the concurrence void ab initio—meaning it never took effect and is not in effect. The court also found that the dispute was not moot and that the Governor’s authority to concur is subject to the electorate’s overriding power under California constitutional law. View "Picayune Rancheria v. North Fork Rancheria" on Justia Law

After entering a no contest plea to charges including willful infliction of corporal injury and dissuading a witness, the petitioner was sentenced to four years’ probation and 60 days in county jail. She was referred to a work release program in lieu of serving her jail time. While participating, she discovered she was pregnant and could not complete her work assignment due to morning sickness. After providing proof of her pregnancy, the sheriff advised her not to return to the worksite because no light duty was available, and her case was sent back to the trial court for further action.The Contra Costa County Superior Court later considered her situation. At a hearing, the court found that she had not willfully violated the terms of the work release program but concluded that the alternative sentence was no longer feasible. The court ordered her to serve the remainder of her jail term in custody, denying her requests for re-referral to the program or a delayed surrender. The petitioner subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition with the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, asserting that her due process rights had been violated.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, held that individuals enrolled in work release programs in lieu of jail time possess a conditional liberty interest that cannot be revoked without due process. The court found that the trial court’s decision to remand the petitioner into custody was based on a factual finding—her unfitness for the program—that was unsupported by the evidence. As a result, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the matter with instructions to re-refer the petitioner to the work release program to complete any remaining days owed. View "In re Riley" on Justia Law

A man was apprehended after leading police on a high-speed chase in a stolen vehicle. When the vehicle was stopped, law enforcement found an AR-style firearm with an overall length of less than 30 inches on the passenger-side floorboard. The man was charged with several offenses, including driving or taking a vehicle without consent, fleeing a police officer while driving recklessly, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of an assault weapon. The information also alleged several aggravating factors related to his criminal history and conduct.In Contra Costa County Superior Court, a jury found the defendant guilty of all charges except receiving a stolen vehicle. The court, after a hearing, found true several aggravating factors and sentenced him to three years and four months, including concurrent terms for some offenses. The sentence for possession of an assault weapon was stayed under Penal Code section 654.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed three issues raised by the defendant: whether California’s ban on assault weapon possession violated the Second Amendment; whether sentences for taking a vehicle without consent and fleeing an officer should have been stayed as based on the same act; and whether the abstract of judgment accurately reflected custody credits. The court held that Penal Code section 30605 does not violate the Second Amendment because there was no evidence in the record that assault weapons covered by the statute are in common use by law-abiding citizens, as required by relevant Supreme Court precedent. The court also held that the two vehicle-related offenses involved separate criminal objectives and thus did not require a stay under section 654. However, the court agreed that the custody credits were miscalculated and directed the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment accordingly. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "People v. Crenshaw" on Justia Law

An activist who sought to distribute leaflets at two adjoining privately owned shopping centers in California was denied permission by the centers' owners, who maintained a policy prohibiting expressive activity, including leafletting, on their property. The activist’s leaflets promoted his views on men’s reproductive rights and invited the public to attend related meetings. After his requests to leaflet were repeatedly denied, he brought suit, arguing that the centers' blanket ban on expressive activity violated the California Constitution’s liberty of speech provision. He also challenged a section of the centers’ code of conduct that required prior written permission for noncommercial expressive activity, asserting that it granted management unfettered discretion.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found that a blanket ban on leafletting was unconstitutional and that the balance of harms favored the plaintiff. However, the court denied the activist’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding he was unlikely to prevail on the merits. The court reasoned that his deposition testimony limited his challenge to leafletting near store entrances—areas not considered public fora under California precedent—and further found that his leaflets constituted unlicensed legal advice, which it deemed unprotected speech.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed. The appellate court held that the plaintiff had standing to bring a facial challenge to the centers' expressive activity ban, regardless of whether his own speech was constitutionally protected, and that his challenge was not limited to store entrances. The court determined that the centers' total ban on expressive activity in common areas was unconstitutional under Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center and subsequent California Supreme Court authority. It also found the centers’ permitting requirement invalid for lacking objective criteria. The appellate court directed the trial court to grant a preliminary injunction, allowing the centers to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions but not to prohibit expressive activity entirely. View "Salazar v. Majestic Realty Co." on Justia Law