Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant Juan Cisneros-Ramirez was charged with two counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 years old or younger, and three counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14. The first two charges were each separately punishable “by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life.” If convicted as charged, defendant faced a potential sentence of two consecutive 15-years-to-life indeterminate prison terms, plus additional determinate prison terms for the three child molestation counts. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal was that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress statements he claims were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. The Court of Appeal found defendant unequivocal waiver of his right to appeal precluded further review of his arguments on appeal. Furthermore, the certificate of probable cause issued in this case did not affect the Court’s conclusion since it was legally ineffectual, having certified an issue that was not cognizable following a guilty plea. View "California v. Cisneros-Ramirez" on Justia Law

Rasooly unsuccessfully appealed a 2015 “Notice and Order to Repair or Demolish Structure" for his vacant Oakley building, then sought judicial review. The city agreed to rescind the Notice; Rasooly was to provide plans responsive to city comments and complete all required work by April 2017. Rasooly’s counsel said more time was required for the work. The city replied that at least stabilization work must be done within the time requested. Rasooly’s counsel did not respond. For several months, Rasooly and the city’s permit center manager communicated by e-mail. On March 1, 2017, the city issued a new notice and order that the property be repaired or demolished, physically posted the notice on the property, and sent it by certified mail to a post office box listed as Rasooly’s address on county tax rolls. The mailing was returned undelivered. After the 20-day period for administrative appeal lapsed, the city advised Rasooly’s attorney of the notice on April 4, 2017. On April 5, Rasooly filed suit. The city cited Rasooly’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of Rasooly's petition, finding that the city complied with the Code and rejecting an argument that the “nail & mail” procedures were constitutionally deficient in the absence of efforts at personal service. View "Rasooly v. City of Oakley" on Justia Law

After a heated exchange outside a bar, defendant Nathaniel Stutelberg jabbed a box cutter at Michelle S. and Chris L., lacerating Michelle's head but not injuring Chris. Among other things, the jury convicted Stutelberg of mayhem with a deadly weapon enhancement as to Michelle, and assault with a deadly weapon as to Chris. The single issue presented to the Court of Appeal in this matter was whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the definition of "deadly weapon" such that either of Stutelberg's convictions should have been reversed. As to the offense against Michelle, the Court concluded the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: “We have no difficulty deciding from the record that the jury would have reached the same verdict but for the error.” The Court reached a different conclusion regarding Chris: Stutelberg's use of the box cutter in that encounter “is more nebulous, and on the record before us we cannot conclude that the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Accordingly, the Court reversed Stutelberg’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in count 3 but otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Stutelberg" on Justia Law

In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal noted that effective January 1, 2019, Code of Civil Procedure section 998 will have no application to costs and attorney and expert witness fees in a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) action unless the lawsuit is found to be "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." In regard to the litigation that predated the application of the amended version of Government Code section 12965(b), the court held that section 998 does not apply to nonfrivolous FEHA actions and reversed the order awarding defendant costs and expert witness fees pursuant to that statute. View "Huerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Esteban Vera was convicted of possessing one kilogram of a controlled substance that was discovered through a dog sniff during a traffic stop of his vehicle. An officer had stopped Vera due to a tinted-window infraction. At issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the dog sniff unconstitutionally prolonged his detention for that traffic stop, requiring suppression of the drugs under Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015). Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Vera’s suppression motion. View "California v. Vera" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Richard Garcia was convicted by jury of first degree residential burglary. Defendant admitted having one prior strike/prior serious felony conviction and one prison prior, and he was sentenced to 14 years in prison, including a five-year consecutive term based on his prior serious felony conviction. In this appeal, defendant claimed the trial court abused its discretion and deprived him of his due process right to present a defense by excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Robert Shomer concerning the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Court of Appeal found no merits to these claims, but remanded the matter for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 1393), which amended Penal Code sections 667(a) and 1385 (b), effective January 1, 2019, to give courts discretion to dismiss or strike a prior serious felony conviction for sentencing purposes. In all other respects, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant Michelle Franske and the State both appealed a resentencing proceeding pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court granted defendant’s request to reduce her November 2010 conviction for felony second degree commercial burglary to misdemeanor shoplifting and reduced her punishment for that offense only. In doing so, the trial court rejected the State's argument that defendant’s conduct actually did not constitute shoplifting and also rejected defendant’s additional request to strike the associated on-bail enhancement. The Court of Appeal originally concluded the trial court got it right on both rulings and affirmed. Thereafter, the California Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review and ultimately transferred the case with direction for the Court of Appeal to vacate its prior decision and to reconsider the cause in light of the recently decided California v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018). Applying Buycks, the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion. View "California v. Franske" on Justia Law

In October 2013, defendant Okouava Saelee was charged with manufacturing hash oil, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possessing marijuana for sale. The complaint alleged he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction based on a 1994 conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm. In September 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to possessing marijuana for sale and admitted the prior serious felony conviction allegation as well as a prior prison term allegation under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), which was added to the information by stipulation. The court sentenced defendant to a negotiated aggregate term of seven years. In December 2016, defendant petitioned to redesignate his offense as a misdemeanor. In February 2017, the prosecution filed written opposition to the petition, arguing that resentencing was inappropriate because defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The prosecution did not challenge defendant’s assertion that he was statutorily eligible for resentencing. Although the prosecution’s written opposition contained numerous factual assertions, it was not supported by any evidence. Through its opinion, the Court of Appeal made clear that the prosecution was required to admit actual evidence to establish an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety in the second step of Health and Safety Code section 11361.8 (b), enacted as part of Proposition 64. Furthermore, the Court held that the standard of proof was proof by a preponderance of the evidence. “Mere assertions of fact and argument by the prosecution, unsupported by evidence, is insufficient to establish an unreasonable risk of danger to the public, i.e., an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a ‘super-strike’ violent felony offense. Thus, while we disagree with defendant’s contention that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to the risk of dangerousness finding under section 11361.8(b), we nevertheless conclude the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting defendant’s petition to recall and resentence his conviction as a misdemeanor because in determining that defendant presented an unreasonable risk of danger to the public, the trial court relied only on bald factual assertions and argument by the prosecution unsupported by actual evidence.” The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "California v. Saelee" on Justia Law

Petitioner S.V. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (8.452), challenging the juvenile court’s denial of reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361.5 (b)(3), and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother argued the court erred in applying section 361.5 (b)(3) to bypass reunification services with regard to her child, M.C. After review, the Court of Appeal disagree and denied mother’s petition. Furthermore, the Court concurred with the trial court that reunification was not in the child's best interest. View "S.V. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Eric Jones guilty of multiple counts of second degree burglary of a vehicle and additional offenses arising from a series of car break-ins throughout San Francisco that occurred over a 17-month period. The trial court instructed the jury that if it found Jones committed one or more of the charged auto burglaries (along with one uncharged auto burglary) by a preponderance of the evidence, it could consider that evidence in deciding identity and intent to commit theft for the other charged crimes. The instruction reminded the jury that the prosecution had to prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Jones argued on appeal this instruction had the effect of lowering the prosecution’s burden of proof, and was structural error requiring automatic reversal. The Court of Appeal concluded the instruction should not have been given, but there was no structural error. Any error in giving the instruction was harmless. View "California v. Jones" on Justia Law