Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant Daniel Marsh, one month shy of his 16th birthday, stalked a Davis neighborhood at night and randomly selected the home of two victims to satisfy a long-standing (and oft-expressed) desire to kill, after which he mutilated their bodies. He was found guilty by jury of two counts of first degree murder (finding that he personally used a deadly weapon in each instance) and sustained allegations of three special circumstances. Defendant was found sane at the time of the offenses. After making an individualized assessment of the appropriateness of the sentence, the trial court imposed an indeterminate life sentence with a minimum term of 52 years. The case was not fully briefed until July 2017. On appeal, defendant argued Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), which respectively prohibited the mandatory punishment of life without parole for minors for any offense, or the death penalty under any circumstances, even for minors who commit homicide. Both cases applied in the context of a sanity determination, requiring the resurrection of the doctrine abrogated under California law in which an “irresistible impulse” test was applied to determine a defendant’s sanity. Defendant argued on appeal to the Court of Appeal that the sanity phase had to be reversed and retried with instructions on this rejected standard. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal noted that in supplemental briefing, defendant had “deeply disturbed mental functioning,” that did not of itself align with the criteria absolving a defendant on the ground of insanity. The judgment of the criminal court was conditionally reversed and the matter remanded to the juvenile court with direction to hold a juvenile transfer hearing to determine defendant’s suitability for treatment in juvenile or criminal court within 90 days of the issuance of the Court of Appeals’ remittitur. If the juvenile court determined that defendant was the proper subject of criminal proceedings, it shall reinstate the criminal judgment. If the juvenile court finds that it would not have transferred defendant to a court of criminal jurisdiction, then it shall deem defendant’s convictions to be juvenile adjudications and conduct a dispositional hearing within its usual time frame. View "California v. Marsh" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Baker was convicted by jury on one count of oral copulation of his six-year-old niece in violation of Penal Code section 288.7(b), and two counts of lewd acts in violation of Penal Code section 288(a). At sentencing, the trial court imposed the mandatory 15-years-to-life prison sentence on the oral copulation count but expressed its view that the sentence was "absolutely disproportionate to the crime that was committed" and encouraged Baker to appeal on Eighth Amendment grounds. Baker argued the trial court misunderstood its sentencing authority to not impose an unconstitutional sentence. Furthermore, he argued the indeterminate sentence imposed was cruel and/or unusual in violation of the federal and state constitutions and that his counsel's failure to object on this basis amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The State conceded the trial court had the power to decide whether the mandatory prison term in this case was an unconstitutional sentence. Even if the trial court misunderstood the scope of its authority, the Court of Appeal determined a remand for resentencing was unnecessary because the indeterminate 15-years-to-life sentence was not cruel and/or unusual as a matter of law. For similar reasons, the Court concluded Baker did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. As such, his convictions and sentence was affirmed. View "California v. Baker" on Justia Law

Defendant Kelly Wolfe killed a pedestrian while driving under the influence of alcohol. The prosecution charged Wolfe with an implied malice murder (colloquially known as a Watson murder). The trial court refused to instruct the jury on involuntary or vehicular manslaughter; it was well-settled that these were not lesser included offenses. The court also instructed the jury that voluntary intoxication was not a defense to an implied malice murder; this was also an accurate statement of California law. The jury convicted Wolfe of murder and other offenses. Wolfe claimed on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the murder conviction; (2) the trial court erred by not allowing a manslaughter instruction as a lesser included offense, thus violating the equal protection clause; and (3) the trial court failed to allow voluntary intoxication as a defense violates due process. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

Defendant Kelly Wolfe killed a pedestrian while driving under the influence of alcohol. The prosecution charged Wolfe with an implied malice murder (colloquially known as a Watson murder). The trial court refused to instruct the jury on involuntary or vehicular manslaughter; it was well-settled that these were not lesser included offenses. The court also instructed the jury that voluntary intoxication was not a defense to an implied malice murder; this was also an accurate statement of California law. The jury convicted Wolfe of murder and other offenses. Wolfe claimed on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the murder conviction; (2) the trial court erred by not allowing a manslaughter instruction as a lesser included offense, thus violating the equal protection clause; and (3) the trial court failed to allow voluntary intoxication as a defense violates due process. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

Appellant Andrew Tran was convicted of murdering and attempting to murder two rival gang members. On appeal, he contended his conviction for attempted murder had to be reversed because the trial court gave the jury a confusing and inapt instruction on the kill zone theory. The Court of Appeal rejected this contention. However, appellant was only 16 years old when he committed his crimes, and the Court agreed with him that the case must be remanded so he can make a record of information that will be relevant to his youthful offender parole hearing in 25 years. Thus, while the Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, the Court remanded for this limited purpose. View "California v. Tran" on Justia Law

Appellant Andrew Tran was convicted of murdering and attempting to murder two rival gang members. On appeal, he contended his conviction for attempted murder had to be reversed because the trial court gave the jury a confusing and inapt instruction on the kill zone theory. The Court of Appeal rejected this contention. However, appellant was only 16 years old when he committed his crimes, and the Court agreed with him that the case must be remanded so he can make a record of information that will be relevant to his youthful offender parole hearing in 25 years. Thus, while the Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, the Court remanded for this limited purpose. View "California v. Tran" on Justia Law

Labor Code section 244, which does not require a litigant to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a civil action, applies only to claims before the Labor Commissioner. The Court of Appeal explained that section 244 has no effect on Campbell v. Regents of University of California, (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, which held that public employees must pursue appropriate internal administrative remedies before filing a civil action against their employer. In this case, plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, the County, in a wrongful termination action. The court held that plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies on her claims that the County terminated her job to discriminate against her; there were no triable issues of fact on plaintiff's claim that she was terminated because of her sexual orientation; and the trial court erred by awarding the County costs on the Fair Employment and Housing Act cause of action. View "Terris v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Johnny Lee Guyton, Jr., guilty of human trafficking, pandering, and pimping of an adult. The trial court sentenced him to 14 years in state prison. Defendant “concedes there was sufficient evidence to establish he was guilty of pandering and pimping; however, he challenges whether there was sufficient evidence to prove he violated Jessica’s personal liberty and committed the crime of human trafficking.” Finding the evidence sufficient to support defendant’s conviction, and no other reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed defendant’s conviction. View "California v. Guyton" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Johnny Lee Guyton, Jr., guilty of human trafficking, pandering, and pimping of an adult. The trial court sentenced him to 14 years in state prison. Defendant “concedes there was sufficient evidence to establish he was guilty of pandering and pimping; however, he challenges whether there was sufficient evidence to prove he violated Jessica’s personal liberty and committed the crime of human trafficking.” Finding the evidence sufficient to support defendant’s conviction, and no other reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed defendant’s conviction. View "California v. Guyton" on Justia Law

Defendant Marlowe William Henderson, Jr., pleaded no contest to charges of stalking, vandalism, and disobeying a court order. At the restitution hearing, defendant argued he could not be ordered to pay restitution for the victims’ security system expenses because he was not convicted of a violent felony as required by section 1202.4(f)(3)(J). Defendant alternatively argued the security system was “redundant” and “excessive.” The trial court opined that the order sought was “well within its discretion” but failed to articulate any analysis of the relevant statutory scheme. The court ordered defendant to pay $7,997.02 in restitution including $5,796.79 for installation of the system. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s restitution order. View "California v. Henderson" on Justia Law