Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2008, a jury convicted Sadiq Saibu and Antonio Valentino for their roles in committing a robbery of a video store, two attempted robberies of a liquor store, and a murder and attempted murder in the same liquor store during one of the attempted robberies. In 2019, Saibu filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.63 as to his murder conviction, contending he was not a major participant in the underlying felony murder and did not act in reckless indifference to human life. The superior court granted the requested relief. Further, he argued the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 703 with respect to the felony murder special circumstances allegation. While this case was pending, the California Legislature enacted and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 775 (Senate Bill 775) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551). Senate Bill 775 amended section 1170.95 to expand eligibility for resentencing to persons convicted of attempted murder. The State conceded that Saibu’s conviction for attempted murder was eligible for resentencing under Senate Bill 775. However, it pointed out the parties did not address that issue, and argued it should be given the opportunity to present additional evidence. Saibu argued that the Court of Appeal should find he was entitled to relief based on the superior’s court’s finding that he did not act with reckless indifference to human life. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal agreed with Saibu on the jury instruction contention and reversed the jury’s true finding on the robbery-murder special circumstance. Regarding the superior court’s determination that Saibu was entitled to relief under section 1172.6 as to his murder conviction, the appellate court determined the State could not show that the court committed reversible legal error. As such, the order was affirmed. The Court remanded this case for the superior court to issue a show cause order and to hold a hearing as to whether Saibu was entitled to relief under section 1172.6 as to his attempted murder conviction. View "California v. Saibu" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Scotlane McCune appealed an order awarding victim restitution. McCune crashed his cousin’s car into a tree, totaling the car’s front end and injuring his passenger. He pled no contest to felony hit and run involving injury, and the court dismissed a charge of misdemeanor driving without a license. As part of his plea, McCune agreed to pay restitution to the victim (the passenger). In June 2018, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed McCune on five years’ probation. Two and one-half years later, the probation department filed and served notice that the victim sought $30,166.23 to recoup medical expenses related to his injuries. Effective the following day, January 1, 2021, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950 (AB 1950) ((2019- 2020 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2). With exceptions not pertinent here, the new law amended Penal Code section 1203.1 (a) to reduce the maximum felony probation term to two years. Accordingly, two weeks later the probation department (with the district attorney’s concurrence) petitioned to terminate McCune’s probation. The petition stated McCune would remain liable for victim restitution. The court granted it the same day. McCune contended the trial lost jurisdiction to order restitution when it terminated his probation early following a change to the Penal Code that shortened his probationary term from five years to two. To this, the Court of Appeal disagreed: the court retained jurisdiction to determine and award victim restitution under Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.461 irrespective of McCune’s probation status. View "California v. McCune" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Legg pleaded guilty to committing a lewd act upon a 14- or 15-year-old child, a conviction that required him to register as a sex offender for life. A subsequent amendment to Penal Code section 290 created a tiered registry for adult sex offenders, requiring a minimum registration period for some offenses and lifetime registration for others; petitioner’s offense continued to require lifetime registration. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate at the trial court, claiming that his lifetime registration requirement denied him equal protection of the laws. The trial court denied the petition, and he appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court. View "Legg v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

Minor N.L. appealed an order adjudging her a ward of the court. She argued: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that she willfully and maliciously committed felony arson of property; and (2) the case should have been remanded for the juvenile court to consider informal supervision under Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2, applying changes to the law that became effective on January 1, 2022 as a result of Senate Bill No. 383 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). After review, the Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to support the true finding, but the Court agreed that N.L. was entitled to a conditional reversal and remand for the trial court to consider informal supervision under the law as amended by Senate Bill No. 383. View "In re N.L." on Justia Law

Danny Beasley, who had a lengthy criminal history, was on parole from a 25-to-life sentence when he committed this first degree robbery. He used a knife in the commission of the offense, which exposed him to a maximum sentence of at least 35 years to life. The trial court dismissed all three of Beasley’s prior strike convictions, his three prior serious felony convictions and the weapon-use enhancement, and sentenced him to the low term of two years in prison. The district attorney objected and filed this appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court’s order dismissing the prior strike convictions plainly “fell outside the bounds of reason under the applicable law and the relevant facts.” Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the matter remanded to allow Beasley an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. View "California v. Beasley" on Justia Law

After defendant-appellant M.H. was convicted of a criminal offense, she was committed to the California Department of State Hospitals at Patton as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) under Penal Code section 2962. While committed, M.H. petitioned under section 2966 (c) challenging her commitment and requesting appointment of counsel and a hearing. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant, and defendant requested a bench trial. Toward the beginning of the bench trial, the trial court advised defendant of her right to a jury trial under section 2966 (b), but did not advise her of her right to call, confront, or subpoena witnesses. Defendant did not object, waived her right to a jury trial, and stipulated to the trial court’s ruling on her petition based on the parties’ papers. The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant qualified as a MDO and denied her petition. On appeal, defendant contended section 2966 (b) required the trial court to advise her of her right to call and confront witnesses and subpoena them if necessary, that the trial court erred in failing to do so, and that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise her of her rights. To this the Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the district court. View "California v. M.H." on Justia Law

Defendant Pravindar Prem Singh, a noncitizen legal resident, was found guilty of various illegal substance charges. After serving his sentence for these convictions he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He filed a motion under California Penal Code section 1473.7,1 seeking to vacate his conviction. He argued that, had he known of the immigration consequences of those convictions, he would have attempted to negotiate a plea to an offense or offenses that did not carry those consequences. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, finding he was ineligible because his conviction was the result of a trial, not a plea. Assembly Bill No. 1259 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) became effective while defendant’s appeal was pending and modified section 1473.7. The Court of Appeal concluded Assembly Bill 1259 made clear defendants whose convictions derived from a trial were eligible for relief under section 1473.7, so the trial court’s order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "California v. Singh" on Justia Law

Petitioner Matthew Mazur concocted a fraudulent investment scheme that resulted in his conviction on 35 felony charges and various sentencing enhancements. After an appeal that resulted in resentencing, and several subsequent unsuccessful petitions for writs of habeas corpus, Mazur filed this petition for habeas relief, challenging the imposition of an on-bail enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.1. Mazur argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the enhancement because the statute, by its terms, did not apply. The Court of Appeal found the statute unambiguously required an arrest for a secondary offense, which did not occur in this case. Therefore, the Court agreed the on-bail enhancement was improperly imposed and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge its imposition. View "In re Mazur" on Justia Law

Defendant Laura Shelly pled no contest to one count of embezzlement by an employee. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court imposed a five-year term of felony probation. The court also ordered defendant to pay $72,972.47 in restitution. Shelly argued on appeal the length of her probation had to be reduced in light of Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) which reduced the maximum length of felony probation to two or three years. She also argued the amount of restitution had to be reduced by $5,816.25. The Court of Appeal agreed, and the State conceded, that Assembly Bill 1950 applied retroactively and entitled defendant to have the length of her probation reduced. The question remaining was whether the State was then entitled to withdraw from the plea agreement. To this, the Court held it was not. The Court also reduced the restitution order by $1,000. View "California v. Shelly" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Kejuan Clark was convicted by jury of rape, forced oral copulation, false imprisonment, first degree burglary, and robbery in concert inside an inhabited dwelling. The jury found true the allegations that (1) the rape and forced oral copulation were committed during the burglary; (2) during the burglary, a person other than an accomplice was present in the residence; and (3) the false imprisonment, burglary, and robbery were committed in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to assist criminal conduct by gang members. Defendant admitted a prior strike conviction and committing the charged “felony offenses while released from custody prior to the judgment becoming final on the primary offense.” The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for a determinate term of 20 years plus an indeterminate term of 90 years to life. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to amend the indeterminate abstract of judgment to reflect the statute in Count 5 was Penal Code section 288a(c)(2)(A), and send the amended abstract of judgment to the appropriate agency/agencies. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "California v. Clark" on Justia Law