Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Paul Hupp was convicted by jury on four counts of violating Penal Code section 69 based on threatening statements he made to four judges. On appeal, Hupp raised an issue of first impression: Is a judge an “executive officer” within the meaning of section 69, which makes it a crime to attempt to deter, by means of any threat, an executive officer from the performance of a legal duty? The Court of Appeal concluded the answer was no: in this context, “executive officer” unambiguously refers to an officer of the executive branch, and judges are not part of the executive branch. The Court therefore agreed with Hupp that his convictions had to be reversed. View "California v. Hupp" on Justia Law

Weeks after Hampton left his employment at a restaurant, the restaurant was robbed. During Hampton's January 2022 trial, the judge dismissed two jurors for reasons related to COVID-19 and seated the two remaining alternate jurors. After jury deliberations began, the judge was called away by a personal emergency. Another judge took her place. A juror subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. Hampton claimed that the original judge had made an off-the-record ruling prohibiting remote deliberations. After consulting the original judge, the substitute judge denied a mistrial and permitted the COVID-positive juror to deliberate remotely for one day, after which the jury returned its verdicts. The foreperson disclosed that the jury agreed on the verdicts while all the jurors were present in person; during the remote deliberations, the jury discussed only the lesser weapon enhancements on which it hung. Hampton was convicted of felony counts of second-degree robbery and false imprisonment but acquitted of accompanying firearm enhancements, and placed on probation for three years.The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the substitute judge improperly relied on ex parte communications with the original judge and that the jury deliberations in which one juror participated remotely were unauthorized and unconstitutional. The judges’ communications were ethical and did not deny Hampton a fair trial. Any error in permitting the jury to deliberate remotely for one day was harmless because that deliberation did not result in a finding of guilt. View "People v. Hampton" on Justia Law

Defendant Joseph Das appealed a trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding the stated factual basis for defendant’s guilty plea refuted the allegations in his petition for resentencing, rendering him ineligible for relief. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s assessment that the stated factual basis, if true, demonstrated defendant stabbed the attempted murder victim with the intent to kill, defendant did not stipulate to the factual basis or otherwise admit the truth of the facts recited by the prosecutor. The Court agreed with defendant that the trial court improperly engaged in factfinding at the prima facie stage and reversed for that reason. View "California v. Das" on Justia Law

BioCorRx, Inc. (BioCorRx) was a publicly traded company primarily engaged in the business of providing addiction treatment services and related medication. It issued several press releases that allegedly made misrepresentations and improperly disclosed confidential information about a treatment it was developing for opioid overdose. VDM Biochemicals, Inc. (VDM) specializes in the synthesis and distribution of chemicals, reagents, and other specialty products for life science research. It owned a patent (the patent) for VDM-001, a compound with potential use as a treatment for opioid overdose. In September 2018, VDM and BioCorRx entered into a Mutual Nondisclosure & Confidentiality Agreement (the NDA), which restricted each party’s disclosure of confidential information as they discussed forming a business relationship. A month later, VDM and BioCorRx signed a Letter of Intent to Enter Definitive Agreement to Acquire Stake in Intellectual Property (the letter of intent). The letter of intent memorialized the parties’ shared desire whereby BioCorRx would partner with VDM to develop and commercialize VDM-001. BioCorRx and VDM never signed a formal contract concerning VDM-001. Their relationship eventually soured. BioCorRx filed a complaint (the complaint) against VDM; VDM cross-complained. In response, BioCorRx filed the anti-SLAPP motion at issue here, seeking to strike all the allegations from the cross-complaint concerning the press releases. The Court of Appeal found these statements fell within the commercial speech exemption of California's Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute) because they were representations about BioCorRx’s business operations that were made to investors to promote its goods and services through the sale of its securities. Since these statements were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, the Court reversed the part of the trial court’s order granting the anti-SLAPP motion as to the press releases. The Court affirmed the unchallenged portion of the order striking unrelated allegations. View "BioCorRx, Inc. v. VDM Biochemicals, Inc." on Justia Law

This is an appeal from an order granting Defendants Seyfarth Shaw LLP (Seyfarth) and Colleen Regan a portion of the fees they requested pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.161 (the anti-SLAPP2 statute) and resulting judgment. The trial court awarded the fees without finally ruling on Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Plaintiffs immediately thereafter dismissed their complaint. Plaintiffs appealed the fee award on three general theories. Defendants cross-appealed. They argue the trial court should have awarded all the fees they requested, not just a portion of those fees, because all of Plaintiffs’ claims were based on conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, no exceptions applied, and their request was reasonable.   The Second Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court explained that it agreed with Defendants that their motion to strike was wholly meritorious and their fee request therefore should not have been reduced on the grounds that they would have prevailed only partially on their motion. The court disagreed with Plaintiffs that the trial court erred in the ways they claimed. The court explained that under Coltrain, Defendants prevailed because plaintiffs dismissed their suit and failed to show it was for reasons unrelated to lack of merit. Further, under Liu, Defendants were the prevailing party because their Anti-SLAPP motion was entirely meritorious. View "Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Joshua Allen appealed his convictions for possessing a controlled substance while armed with a firearm and possessing an unregistered and loaded firearm while in a vehicle. He argued on appeal that the laws violate dthe Second Amendment as interpreted by N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __ [142 S.Ct. 2111] (2022). The Court of Appeal rejected the constitutional challenges, and published its analysis concerning possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm to confirm that California v. Gonzalez, 75 Cal.App.5th 907, 912-916 (2022) remained good law. Nevertheless, the Court vacated Allen’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because the Court agreed with the parties that Allen’s sentence violated Penal Code section 654. View "California v. Allen" on Justia Law

In the middle of the global COVID-19 pandemic, a jury convicted Dominic Molina of committing various sexual crimes against his girlfriend’s young daughter. Molina contended that COVID-19 safety protocols implemented at trial, particularly the use of masks and socially distanced seating arrangements, deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial, and further that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by asking the trial court to disclose to prospective jurors that he was in custody. The Court of Appeal found neither argument had any merit, and affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Molina" on Justia Law

In October 2010, Quang Van Quan was convicted by jury on three counts of first degree murder, and found true two felony murder special circumstance allegations that the murders took place during the commission of a burglary, robbery, or attempted robbery. Quan petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6) based on changes made by the Legislature to limit accomplice liability under the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Quan’s petition and found Quan was ineligible for resentencing. In his briefing, Quan raised numerous claims of error by the trial court. The Court of Appeal addressed none because the Court found Quan was correct that his constitutional and statutory rights to be personally present at the hearing were violated, and the Court agreed the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court therefore reversed the trial court’s order denying his resentencing petition and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing. View "California v. Quan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant, The Riverside County District Attorney, appealed a trial court’s dismissal of three felony charges against defendant-respondent Danny Manzo due to evidence lost during the prosecution’s five-year delay in prosecuting the case after filing charges against defendant. Because there was no evidence that the loss of evidence prejudiced defendant, the Court reversed the order dismissing the complaint. View "California v. Manzo" on Justia Law

The San Bernardino County District Attorney (the District Attorney) appealed a trial court order granting Karla Coca’s petition under Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate a misdemeanor conviction. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Coca failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that “the conviction . . . being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization.” The Court accordingly reversed the order. View "California v. Coca" on Justia Law