Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A drug dealer identified only as “Max” owed money to a group of other drug dealers for some methamphetamine that had gone missing. He decided to ambush his creditors, tie them up, rob them of any drugs and money they might have, and kill them. Max delegated the actual commission of these planned crimes to at least nine men. The participants carried out the plan, but not flawlessly. One of the victims, although shot in the face and chest, survived, and he was able to provide information that led the police to defendant Jose Perez and to Sabas Iniguez. Perez gave statements to the police incriminating himself. Iniguez testified at trial pursuant to a plea bargain. Defendants were convicted of multiple first degree murders, with special circumstances, as well as other crimes. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal held trial counsel forfeited any objection to expert testimony to case-specific hearsay, by failing to raise it at trial. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court held there was insufficient evidence to support the gang special circumstance. Furthermore, the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the financial-gain special circumstance. Hence, the Court reverse those two special circumstances. The trial court was directed to consider whether to strike the firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, pursuant to newly enacted Senate Bill 620. Otherwise, however, the Court found no prejudicial error. View "California v. Perez" on Justia Law

Birts was charged with several counts of felony domestic violence, with special allegations for use of a deadly weapon, serious felony enhancements, prior strikes and prison priors. Shortly after the trial judge, Buchwald ruled on several pretrial motions, the District Attorney successfully moved to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence. The following day, the case was refiled under a new case number. The prosecutor stated that “[t]he dismissal was based on in limine rulings that were made excluding certain evidence. The refiled case was assigned to Buchwald. The District Attorney successfully moved to disqualify him under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The court of appeal vacated, finding that the District Attorney’s peremptory challenge in the refiled case was untimely because the second action was a mere continuation of the first. View "Birts v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Birts was charged with several counts of felony domestic violence, with special allegations for use of a deadly weapon, serious felony enhancements, prior strikes and prison priors. Shortly after the trial judge, Buchwald ruled on several pretrial motions, the District Attorney successfully moved to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence. The following day, the case was refiled under a new case number. The prosecutor stated that “[t]he dismissal was based on in limine rulings that were made excluding certain evidence. The refiled case was assigned to Buchwald. The District Attorney successfully moved to disqualify him under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The court of appeal vacated, finding that the District Attorney’s peremptory challenge in the refiled case was untimely because the second action was a mere continuation of the first. View "Birts v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

After being accused of numerous sexual offenses against his girlfriend’s children, Lopez pleaded no contest to two counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14 years old and one count of rape and admitted a special allegation that he had committed offenses against more than one victim. He was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the trial court erred in denying Ortiz’s request to discharge his retained counsel, who had represented him for two years. The request, made about a week before trial was scheduled to begin, was not untimely and the trial court erred by not inquiring into “whether justice would be unjustifiably delayed by granting the motion.” Although the case was old, Lopez asked to discharge the attorney during plea negotiations, before it was clear whether the trial would proceed, and the prosecutor did not object to the request. The trial court did not indicate it believed Lopez had improper motives in seeking to discharge his counsel; the record suggests the contrary. View "People v. Lopez" on Justia Law

After being accused of numerous sexual offenses against his girlfriend’s children, Lopez pleaded no contest to two counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14 years old and one count of rape and admitted a special allegation that he had committed offenses against more than one victim. He was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the trial court erred in denying Ortiz’s request to discharge his retained counsel, who had represented him for two years. The request, made about a week before trial was scheduled to begin, was not untimely and the trial court erred by not inquiring into “whether justice would be unjustifiably delayed by granting the motion.” Although the case was old, Lopez asked to discharge the attorney during plea negotiations, before it was clear whether the trial would proceed, and the prosecutor did not object to the request. The trial court did not indicate it believed Lopez had improper motives in seeking to discharge his counsel; the record suggests the contrary. View "People v. Lopez" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Christian Almanza of first degree murder and assault with a firearm. The jury found gang enhancement allegations true on both counts. On the murder charge, the jury found a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. The trial court found Almanza suffered two prior strike convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law. The trial court sentenced Almanza to an aggregate term of 137 years to life, including 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53(d). The court stayed two other firearm enhancements. The California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal's opinion affirming the judgment and remanded the matter to the appellate court with directions to vacate its opinion and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 620. In October 2017, the Governor signed SB No. 620 into law, effective January 1, 2018, amending subdivision (h) of section 12022.53. The amended subdivision provides: “The court may, in the interest of justice pursuant to Section 1385 and at the time of sentencing, strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by this section. The authority provided by this subdivision applies to any resentencing that may occur pursuant to any other law.” When the retroactive application of a statute gives a trial court discretion to reconsider imposing a lower sentence than one previously imposed, it is customary for an appellate court to remand the case to the trial court. The State conceded SB No. 620 applied retroactively. However, the State argued remand to the trial court was not appropriate under the facts of this case because the record showed the trial court “would not . . . have exercised its discretion to lessen the sentence.” The Court of Appeal agreed with the State: "there is no reasonable probability the trial court would exercise its discretion in favor of Almanza. A jury convicted Almanza of a cold-blooded, premeditated murder committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. His record includes two prior strikes and a prior prison term. If the trial court were inclined to be lenient, it would have made the sentence for assault concurrent with the sentence for murder." View "California v. Almanza" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Roosevelt Beatty guilty of two counts of transporting methamphetamine, two counts of sale of methamphetamine, and two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale. At a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that the prosecution proved various recidivist enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of 16 years imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued the judgment had to be reversed because the Yolo County Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over the charged offenses. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded Yolo County was a proper venue to try defendant. The Court found defendant aided and abetted a drug dealer by supplying drugs to the dealer for the purpose of selling the drugs to a third party who had contacted the dealer from Yolo County. The calls from Yolo County initiating the transactions provided the requisite preparatory acts or preparatory effects to establish venue. View "California v. Beatty" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Roosevelt Beatty guilty of two counts of transporting methamphetamine, two counts of sale of methamphetamine, and two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale. At a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that the prosecution proved various recidivist enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of 16 years imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued the judgment had to be reversed because the Yolo County Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over the charged offenses. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded Yolo County was a proper venue to try defendant. The Court found defendant aided and abetted a drug dealer by supplying drugs to the dealer for the purpose of selling the drugs to a third party who had contacted the dealer from Yolo County. The calls from Yolo County initiating the transactions provided the requisite preparatory acts or preparatory effects to establish venue. View "California v. Beatty" on Justia Law

Appellant Thomas Guarino appealed a superior court order granting an “anti-SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) motion to strike his First Amended Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The motion was filed by defendants County of Siskiyou (County), individual members of the Board of Supervisors Marcia Armstrong, Grace Bennett, Michael Kobseff, Ed Valenzuela, and Jim Cook (the Board), as well as County Administrator, Tom Odom (collectively, defendants). Guarino also appealed the trial court’s order sustaining demurrers without leave to amend that were filed on behalf of the County, the Board, and Odom. Guarino was appointed as Siskiyou County’s County Counsel for a term of four years, beginning November 2008. The County began an investigation into Guarino’s actions in 2011 in response to a complaint by Guarino’s subordinate, Paula Baca. The County retained an outside law firm (Cota Cole LLP) to conduct the investigation, the legality of which was questioned by Guarino. This law firm also investigated Guarino’s claim that Baca had violated her duty of loyalty to the County Counsel’s office. The investigation into Baca’s activities resulted in a written report in November 2011 “which entirely exonerated [Guarino] and informed him that it was provided ‘for the purpose of closing the above-referenced matter. Nothing in the investigation may or will be used for any disciplinary purpose and therefore, the investigation report, as indicated, will remain a confidential document.’ ” In December 2011, Guarino was appointed to a second term as county counsel to commence in November 2012. A subsequent investigation followed, which resulted in a September 7, 2012, report that also exonerated Guarino, while at the same time recommending the privatization of the County Counsel’s Office. Guarino filed his complaint arising from the investigations into his conduct arising from the Baca matter and leading up to the privatization of his post. Because the Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 motion, it did not decide whether the trial court erred in sustaining defendants’ demurrers. View "Guarino v. County of Siskiyou" on Justia Law

HomeAway, an online forum that allows owners to list their properties for short-term rentals and connect with individuals who want to rent a house or apartment, rather than stay in a hotel, is not a party to those rental transactions. San Francisco requires owners who rent out property to obtain a registration certificate from the treasurer; short-term renters must pay a transient occupancy tax. A recent report on short-term rentals in San Francisco showed that most owners did not comply with those requirements. San Francisco obtained a court to enforce an administrative subpoena, requiring HomeAway.com to disclose data about San Francisco rental transactions. The court of appeal affirmed the order, rejecting arguments that the subpoena violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701–2712, which regulates the government’s ability to compel disclosure of some electronic data stored on the Internet, and that enforcing the subpoena would violate its customers’ constitutional rights. Even if HomeAway is “covered” by the Act, there is no violation because San Francisco used an authorized procedure. In addition, the subpoena does not require HomeAway to disclose electronic communications but seeks very specific information about hosts who use HomeAway to offer to rent property and about bookings. It does not command HomeAway to produce any customer's electronic communication or login information. View "City and County of San Francisco v. HomeAway.com, Inc." on Justia Law