Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant Kejhonne Henderson shot and killed J.P. at a house party in the North Highlands neighborhood of Sacramento. Defendant wounded another. A jury found defendant guilty of one count of second degree murder, and one count of attempted murder, and found true enhancement allegations that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death as to each count. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate determinate term of seven years plus an aggregate indeterminate prison term of 65 years to life. Defendant appealed. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that a trial court may not excuse for cause African-American prospective jurors solely because of their belief that the criminal justice system treats African-Americans unfairly, but rejected defendant’s assertion that the two African-American prospective jurors here were excused for that reason. “They were excused because the trial court concluded that, based on the voir dire evidence, they could not be impartial because of their bias and sympathy for defendant.” In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court rejected defendant’s other claims of error except to a firearm enhancement: the conviction was affirmed but the matter remanded for the trial court to consider to exercise its discretion to strike the enhancement and impose instead something lesser. View "California v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Defendant Fernando Lopez was convicted by jury of premeditated attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In challenging his convictions, Lopez raises two related contentions: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial; and (2) the court’s decision to admit what Lopez referred to as “gang evidence” was an abuse of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 because, he claimed, the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. After full briefing on appeal was completed in this matter, Lopez sought leave to file two supplemental briefs in which he contended his sentence should have been vacated and the case remanded for resentencing in light of recent ameliorative changes to two different sentencing schemes applicable to his case. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded neither of Lopez’s arguments appealing his convictions had merit. However, the Court agreed that he was entitled to resentencing given the recent changes in the law, which the parties agreed applied retroactively to nonfinal cases. View "California v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Forester pled guilty to one count felony stalking, and was found guilty of five counts of disobeying a domestic violence restraining order. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Forester on felony probation for a period of three years. Forester appealed the judgment, contending Penal Code section 1203.1 (a) precluded the court from imposing a probation term in excess of two years. The Court of Appeal determined that because Forester was found guilty of stalking a victim of domestic violence, the two-year felony probation limitation in section 1203.1(a) did not apply. View "California v. Forester" on Justia Law

Defendant was a known gang member. While police officers were surveying Defendant's home, they observed what they believed to be a narcotics transition as Defendant handed an unknown package to the occupants of a vehicle. The officers stopped the vehicle containing the alleged buyers, recovering cash, narcotics, and illegal firearms. Officers then obtained a warrant to search Defendant's home. Police recovered a cell phone containing videos of Defendant ordering the assaults of minors so they could be "jumped" into his gang. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress and Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and two counts of solicitation or recruitment of another person to participate in a criminal gang.The Second Appellate affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, finding that the warrant relied upon to search Defendant's home established probable cause. The warrant affidavit supports the officers' belief that they had witnessed a narcotics or illegal weapons transaction. The visit was three to five minutes long and was consistent with a pick-up or drop-off. Additionally, the location was a known gang hangout.The court also rejected Defendant's claim that the warrant affidavit was stale because it omitted the dates of Defendant's prior convictions. The dates of Defendant's convictions were immaterial based on the other evidence of Defendant's gang membership. View "P. v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Christopher Parra Martinez appealed a Superior Court’s decision not to strike two personal firearm use enhancements imposed pursuant to California Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. The firearm enhancement provisions set forth in sections 12022.5 and 12055.53 were amended effective January 1, 2018 upon the passage of Senate Bill No. 620. (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2017, ch. 682.) The Court of Appeal found the trial court record demonstrated that the trial court considered the appropriate circumstances and exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner when it declined to strike the firearm enhancements imposed at the time of defendant’s sentencing. Therefore, it found no reversible error in the trial court's decision not to strike the enhancement. View "California v. Parra Martinez" on Justia Law

Three men ("Defendants") were involved in a fistfight. During the fracas, one of the Defendants ("the Shooter") retrieved a gun. The Shooter missed his intended target, but several passing vehicles, including a young child. All three Defendants were charged with attempted premeditated murder and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. All charges contained a gang enhancement under Sec. 186.22. The jury convicted all Defendants of two counts of attempted murder and several counts of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. The jury also found the gang enhancements to be true.The Second Appellate District reversed all Defendants' gang enhancements, remanding for further proceedings. The court held that Senate Bill 333 provides a new framework for determining the applicability of the enhancement. The court affirmed the Shooter's convictions for attempted premeditated murder but reversed the other Defendant's convictions for the same. The court held that the evolving standard of aiding and abetting liability requires a retrial on these charges. The court also affirmed the non-shooting Defendant's convictions for shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. View "P. v. Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Christopher Whitmore was convicted by jury of rape, false imprisonment, and other crimes. After trial, Whitmore made a motion under California v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) to replace his appointed counsel; he also moved for a new trial. Because of circumstances related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Whitmore was not physically present in the courtroom when the trial court heard those motions in late December 2020; instead, Whitmore reluctantly appeared via video for the hearing and at sentencing. The court denied Whitmore’s motions and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. On appeal, Whitmore contended the trial court erred in overruling his demand to be personally present in the courtroom for the hearing on his posttrial motions and at sentencing. He also contended the court abused its discretion in denying his Marsden motion, and that insufficient evidence supported his conviction for false imprisonment. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "California v. Whitmore" on Justia Law

Yang was charged after he struck his father in the head with a flashlight and kicked a juvenile down the stairs. On April 9, 2018, the trial court suspended proceedings, finding Yang incompetent to stand trial, and committed him to the Department of State Hospitals. On August 7, 2019, the state hospital’s medical director certified that Yang was competent to stand trial; he was returned to the county jail. The court reinstated criminal proceedings. Yang pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The court imposed a four-year sentence, suspended its execution, and placed Yang on probation.After six petitions for revocation of probation, the court executed the previously-imposed sentence. The probation department recommended he receive only actual time credit and no conduct credit for the time he spent receiving competency treatment in Napa State Hospital. Yang argued, on equal protection grounds, that because Penal Code section 4019(a)(8) had been amended to permit conduct credit for defendants found to be incompetent to stand trial who received competency treatment in county jail treatment facilities, he should receive conduct credit for the time he spent at Napa. The trial court rejected the argument. The court of appeal remanded for resentencing. Yang must be afforded the same opportunity for presentence conduct credit received by defendants receiving competency treatment at a county facility. View "People v. Yang" on Justia Law

The issue presented by this appeal was whether youthful offenders who are statutorily ineligible for early parole consideration were nevertheless entitled to a "Franklin" proceeding to preserve evidence for their eventual parole hearing. During his early 20’s, appellant was involved in three separate criminal incidents. s a result of those incidents, appellant was convicted of kidnapping for robbery and multiple counts of robbery, burglary, false imprisonment and illegal gun possession. He was also found to have personally used a firearm during the offenses and suffered a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced him to 59 years to life in prison under the “Three Strikes” law. In 2020, appellant requested a Franklin proceeding to present mitigation evidence in anticipation of his youth offender parole hearing (YOPH). However, the trial court correctly determined appellant was not eligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. Therefore, it denied his request for a Franklin proceeding. Appellant admitted he was statutorily ineligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. However, he contended he is entitled to a YOPH – and a concomitant Franklin proceeding – as a matter of equal protection. Although the Court of Appeal rejected appellant’s equal protection argument, both parties concluded he was entitled to a Franklin proceeding under the standard rules applicable to all parole hearings. The trial court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for such a proceeding. View "California v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jaime Lopez was convicted by jury of the first degree murder of Reginold Harry. The jury found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of life without the possibility of parole. Defendant appealed a trial court order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, contending he made a prima facie case for relief by showing it was possible the jury had convicted him of felony murder and found the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation to be true without finding he was the victim’s actual killer. The Court of Appeal found the term “actual killer” as used in the revised felony-murder rule of Penal Code section 189 (e)(1) referred to someone who personally killed the victim and was not necessarily the same as a person who “caused” the victim’s death. Under this meaning of actual killer, it was possible for the jury to have found defendant guilty of felony murder, and found to be true the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation, without finding defendant was the actual killer. Defendant therefore met his burden of making a prima facie case for relief under section 1170.95. Accordingly, the Court reversed the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing and remanded with directions to the trial court to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing. View "California v. Lopez" on Justia Law