Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted defendant-appellant Juan Covarrubias of second degree implied malice murder. The court sentenced Covarrubias to prison for 15 years to life. He appealed, contending the trial court erred when it refused to exclude certain portions of the testimony of two employees of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Each of the MADD employees testified about various administrative matters pertaining to MADD, including victim impact panels, and, as relevant here, their own personal stories of tragedy related to drunk driving accidents. Covarrubias alternatively argued the court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 224 (Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence), instead of CALCRIM No. 225 (Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State). After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred when it found the personal-tragedy testimony relevant under Evidence Code1 section 350 and when it found under section 352 that such testimony was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. However, the Court further concluded this error was harmless. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court properly instructed the jury with respect to circumstantial evidence offered to prove the elements and intent of the crime. View "California v. Covarrubias" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment of dismissal following an order sustaining without leave to amend a demurrer by defendants. At issue is whether Labor Code section 3701.9 violates equal protection because it treats temporary services employers (TSE’s) and leasing employers (LE’s) differently from other employers, who are permitted to self-insure. The court concluded that a rational basis exists for treating TSE’s and LE’s differently from other employers with respect to self-insurance. In this case, the potential for a rapid increase in the number of employees, coupled with the delay in adjusting the amount of the self-insurance security deposit, is a rational basis for excluding TSE’s and LE’s from the workers’ compensation self insurance program. View "Kimco Staffing Services v. St. of CA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former police officers and firefighters employed by local public agencies, filed suit alleging that CalPERS's failure to pay enhanced retirement benefits under the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL), Gov. Code section 20000 et seq., gave rise to a variety of causes of action. In these consolidated appeals, the court affirmed in part and concluded that neither the PERL nor plaintiffs' contracts entitle plaintiffs to the additional retirement benefits they seek and therefore, their causes of action for breach of statutory duty and breach of contract fail as a matter of law. Further, plaintiffs' causes of action for constitutional torts also fail because, as a matter of law, CalPERS's interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions does not deny plaintiffs due process or equal protection of law and does not effect an unconstitutional impairment of contract. The court reversed, however, as to the causes of action for rescission and breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs' pleading was sufficient to survive demurrer and therefore demurrer should have been overruled as to these causes of action. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that CalPERS failed to disclose the potential loss of the value of purchased service credit if plaintiffs suffered disability - a disclosure that CalPERS, as a fiduciary, is alleged to have been required to make. View "Marzec v. CalPERS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CalPERs, alleging that he was treated differently because he is Latino. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from CalPERS' refusal to award an investment management contract to plaintiff to manage after the Attorney General began investigating whether CalPERS was unlawfully awarding contracts at the behest of influence peddlers and plaintiff was associated with several businessmen and individuals under investigation. The court concluded that plaintiff does not state a claim of relief under the anti-affirmative action provision originally enacted as Proposition 209 and now codified in Article I, section 31 of the California Constitution. Nevertheless, the court reversed the trial court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims on demurrer because plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable possibility of amending his complaint and because dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims was improper. View "Baez v. CalPERS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the attorneys who represented their adversaries in litigation over various financial transactions, alleging that the attorneys engaged in illegal conduct when they solicited and received confidential, privileged, and/or proprietary information from plaintiffs' former attorney and used that information in the litigation against plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendants' motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAP statute). The court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the complaint arose from protected First Amendment activity; there was insufficient evidence to show defendants' conduct was illegal as a matter of law; and plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing on their claims because the statute of limitations had run and the litigation privilege barred plaintiffs' claims. View "Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan" on Justia Law

Petitioner-respondent Anita Davis, advertising director of the Press-Enterprise newspaper, petitioned the trial court for a judgment establishing the Press-Enterprise as a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Corona. Press-Enterprise’s newspaper is not printed in Corona, and therefore, Press-Enterprise relied upon the exception in Gov. Code section 6006 when making its argument. The trial court adjudged the Press-Enterprise to be a newspaper of general circulation for Corona. Contestant-appellant Sentinel Weekly News argued the trial court erred because Press-Enterprise’s newspaper did not qualify for the section 6006 exemption. The Court of Appeal found that the Press-Enterprise was missing proof for the pre-1923 "established, printed and published" requirement of section 6006, and did not appear to assert the 1922 notice of sale was a legal notice required to be printed in a newspaper of general circulation, such that one could reason the newspaper must have, ipso facto, been a newspaper of general circulation. The Court concluded that section 6006 exception did not apply, and as such, reversed the trial court which held that it did. View "In re Establishment of The Press-Enterprise" on Justia Law

Petitioners sent real parties, the Los Angeles Police Department and Sheriff's Department, a California Public Records Act (CPRA), Gov. Code, 6254, subd. (f), request for their policies and guidelines concerning use of Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology, as well as all ALPR plate scan data real parties collected during a single week in August 2012. Real parties refused to disclose the week's worth of ALPR data and petitioners sought a writ of mandate seeking to compel production. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the records at issue were exempt as records of law enforcement investigations under section 6254, subdivision (f). The court affirmed, concluding that records generated by a system of high-speed cameras that automatically scan and catalogue license plate images to aid law enforcement in locating vehicles associated with suspected crimes are exempt under the law enforcement exception. View "ACLU v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Defendant Juan Vizcarra appealed the sentence he received following a prior appeal. Vizcarra, whose Chicali gang moniker was "Shorty," stabbed a man affiliated with a rival street gang twice in the ribs with a knife, causing him to suffer a collapsed lung. The victim was hospitalized for about two weeks. At the time of the assault, Vizcarra was accompanied by Jeffrey Ruiz, whose Chicali gang moniker was "Speedy" and who testified at trial that he saw Vizcarra stab the victim. Vizcarra was convicted by jury of assaulting his victim with a deadly weapon, and for attempting to dissuade a witness. The jury found Vizcarra not guilty of attempting to willfully, deliberately and with premeditation, murder the victim. In addition, the jury found to be true a count 2 allegation that Vizcarra committed the assault with a deadly weapon for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. The court originally sentenced Vizcarra in this case to an aggregate prison term of 15 years consisting of (1) the upper term of four years for his count 2 conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, doubled to eight years under the Three Strikes law as a result of the court's true finding on the count 2 strike prior allegation; plus (2) a consecutive term of two years for his count 3 conviction of attempting to dissuade a victim or witness, which the court did not double under the Three Strikes law; plus (3) a consecutive five-year term for the gang enhancement. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in memorializing Vizcarra's correct sentences for his convictions. The Court affirmed Vizcarra's convictions, but remanded the case with directions that the trial court prepare a corrected abstract of judgment to reflect that: (1) Vizcarra was sentenced to a prison term of eight years for his count 2 conviction; and (2) he was sentenced to a consecutive prison term of four years for his count 3 conviction. View "California v. Vizcarra" on Justia Law

Defendant Lawrence Jackio was convicted of attempted murder and other crimes associated with a home invasion and sentenced to both determinate and indeterminate terms in state prison. On appeal, he argued that his waiver of his right to counsel, under which he represented himself at trial, was inconsistent with his Sixth Amendment rights because the trial court did not outline the possible terms of imprisonment for the various crimes and enhancements charged against him. Instead, the trial court simply advised defendant that he risked life in prison if he was convicted. In the published part of this opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that, under the circumstances, the trial court’s advisement adequately warned defendant of the risks of self-representation. In the unpublished part of this opinion, the Court found no merit in defendant’s remaining contentions. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment but remanded to the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. View "California v. Jackio" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Sean Delacerda of simple kidnapping, false imprisonment, assault with a firearm, and domestic violence battery, and found true allegations that in committing those crimes he personally used a firearm. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 13 years in prison. Defendant argued on appeal of his conviction and sentence that the kidnapping conviction should have been reversed because the false imprisonment, assault with a firearm, and domestic violence battery are "associated crimes," as that phrase was used in "California v. Martinez," (20 Cal.4th 225 (1999)), and the court erroneously failed to instruct the jury to consider whether the movement of the victim was merely incidental to the commission of those crimes. He also claimed the evidence of movement was insufficient to support the kidnapping conviction. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded false imprisonment was not an "associated crime" as a matter of law, and the assault with a firearm was not an associated crime as a matter of fact. But the Court agreed the evidence was sufficient to show the relationship between the kidnapping and the domestic violence battery met the associated crime test set out in "California v. Bell," (179 Cal.App.4th 428 (2009)). So the court was required to instruct the jury to consider whether the movement of the victim was merely incidental to the commission of the domestic violence battery. "And, since the failure to so instruct was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the kidnapping conviction must be reversed." View "California v. Delacerda" on Justia Law