Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant Frankie Weisner pleaded no contest to second degree robbery and grand theft, and admitted he personally used a firearm in the robbery. After his initial appeal was denied as untimely, defendant sought to reduce his conviction on the grand theft count to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18, which the trial court denied. Defendant appealed the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing. Once the Court of Appeal determines an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief is not subject to "Wende" review, then the case becomes a "standard" appeal of an order denying postconviction relief in which defendant, through counsel, stated there were no issues that properly could be raised on appeal. Under these circumstances, the appeal was abandoned and the Court of Appeal dismissed it. View "California v. Weisner" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with the following counts: 1.) dissuasion of a victim by threat of force, 2.) criminal threats, 3.) assault with a deadly weapon, and 4.) infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on a victim. The jury found Defendant guilty of counts 1, 2 and 4. Additionally, the jury found Defendant guilty of simple assault, as a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant appealed his convictions for counts 1 and 3.The Fifth Appellate District affirmed Defendant's conviction for dissuasion of a victim by threat of force, determining that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on the single count of dissuasion of a victim by threat of force by leaving out the malice requirement. However, the court's error was harmless.The Fifth Appellate District reversed Defendant's conviction for simple assault, finding that simple assault is a lesser included offense of dissuasion of a victim by threat of force. In so doing, the court rejected the government's argument that Defendant's convictions for misdemeanor assault and infliction of corporal injury were based on different acts. View "P. v. Serrano" on Justia Law

Defendant Weldon McDavid, Jr. appealed his resentencing after the Court of Appeal remanded this matter following his original appeal in California v. Lovejoy et al. (July 28, 2020, D073477), a nonpublished opinion (Lovejoy). In Lovejoy, the appellate court affirmed McDavid’s criminal convictions, but vacated his sentence and remanded the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under recently amended Penal Code section 12022.53 to either impose or strike the section 12022.53 (d) enhancements that the court had originally imposed under the former version of the statute. On remand, the trial court declined to strike the section 12022.53 enhancements and reimposed its original sentence, except for a reduction of the restitution fines from $10,000 to $1,800. After consideration of McDavid's arguments on appeal, the Court of Appeal vacated McDavid’s sentence and any balance of the criminal justice administration fee imposed under former Government Code section 29550.1 that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021, and remanded the matter for resentencing to: (1) allow the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether to impose lesser, uncharged section 12022.53, section 12022.5 (a), or other lesser included enhancements in lieu of imposing section 12022.53 (d) enhancements; (2) amend its abstract of judgment to reflect the Court's vacatur of any criminal justice administration fee imposed under former Government Code section 29550.1 that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021; and (3) correct its April 30, 2021 minute order and amend its abstract of judgment to reflect an award to McDavid of presentence credit for all custody time served through the time of his April 30, 2021 resentencing. In all other respects, judgment was affirmed. View "California v. McDavid" on Justia Law

Defendants Victor Wilkins and Aaron Vaughn were found guilty of human trafficking and multiple counts of pimping and pandering; some counts involved a minor victim. They appealed their resultant sentences. After careful review, the Court of Appeal concluded the sentences violated Penal Code section 654, and modified them accordingly. Finding no other reversible error, the Court affirmed in all other respects. View "California v. Vaughn" on Justia Law

Twin brothers, Roman and Ruslan Glukhoy, led police on two high speed chases, the second of which was in a stolen truck and culminated in a fatal collision killing two people. Separate juries found them guilty of multiple offenses and allegations.1 Ruslan, who was convicted of first degree murder with felony-murder special-circumstances, was sentenced to two terms of life without the possibly of parole. Roman, who was convicted of two counts of second degree murder, was sentenced to 30 years to life. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded the alternative-theory instructional error in Roman’s case brought about Senate Bill 1437 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence establishing the valid theory of direct aiding and abetting implied malice was overwhelming. In addition, the Court found that evidence was the same evidence the jury had to have credited to find defendant guilty based on the now invalid natural and probable consequences theory. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court rejected the remainder of Roman's and all of Ruslan's contentions and affirmed the judgments. View "California v. Glukhoy" on Justia Law

When a person is arrested for driving under the influence, the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") holds a hearing to determine if the driver's license should be suspended. The DMV requires that the hearing officers act as both advocates for the DMV as well as triers of fact. The DMV also authorizes managers to change hearing officers’ decisions, or demand hearing officers change their decisions, without providing notice to the driver.Plaintiffs, a group of lawyers, challenged the DMV's administrative hearings process on three grounds. The district court resolved one of Plaintiffs' grounds in favor of the DMV in summary judgment, entering judgment as a matter of law for Plaintiffs on their two remaining claims. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the hearing officers' dual roles as an advocate for the DMV and adjudicator violates drivers’ due process rights; and (2) granting the DMV’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim.The Second Appellate District reversed on these issues, finding Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all their 1983 claim. The lack of neutral hearing officers violates drivers’ federal and state due process rights. The court also found that the trial court did not err in awarding attorneys fees to Plaintiffs. However, because Plaintiff's succeeded on appeal, the court remanded the case for a recalculation of the attorney's fee award. View "California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Cal. Dept. of Motor Vehicles CA2/" on Justia Law

Vacaville Officer Hill followed a car and noticed the license plate light and third brake light at the vehicle's back window appeared not to be working. Hill initiated a traffic stop. Pantoja was alone in the car. When Pantoja gave his name, Hill remembered Pantoja “had a history of violence and firearm possession, and he was at the time an investigative lead in a homicide.” There was no smell of marijuana and no contraband in plain view. Hill saw no signs that Pantoja was intoxicated. Hill ran a record check and learned Pantoja had a valid license and was not on probation or parole. Hill asked Pantoja if he could look in the vehicle for contraband. Pantoja declined. Hill then asked Pantoja to exit his car and put his hands behind his head because Hill was going to issue a citation for the lighting infractions. Pantoja did not make any furtive gestures or sudden movements. As Hill patted Pantoja’s waistband area, he found a revolver. Pantoja was arrested.The trial court granted Pantoja’s motion to suppress, explaining: “[T]he officer … didn’t have any specific or articulable facts to believe that this individual was presently armed or dangerous. The court of appeal affirmed. An officer’s knowledge of a suspect’s past arrests or convictions is inadequate to furnish reasonable suspicion as is the knowledge that a suspect is merely under investigation. View "People v. Pantoja" on Justia Law

Respondent, a consulting company, entered into a written contract whereby respondent agreed to provide services to a health care company on an hourly basis. Appellant, a licensed attorney, is the General Counsel of the health care company. When the health care company did not pay for services, the respondent filed a complaint alleging an ordinary breach of contract. Acting in his individual capacity, appellant filed a special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”). His complaint consisted of six causes of action. Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously determined that he had failed to satisfy the first step of the anti-SLAPP statute he also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees.The Second Appellate District reasoned that the Legislature enacted anti-SLAPP statute to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits that are brought to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights. Here, the court looked to only the first step under the statute because the trial court determined appellant had failed to carry its initial burden. He argued that respondent’s causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and concealment invaded his ability to advise his client and attacked his settlement efforts. The court held that while settlement discussions constitute protected activity, the fifth and sixth causes of action had nothing to do with settlement discussions nor did they arise from protected speech. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s orders denying appellant’s special motion and imposing sanctions. View "Clarity Co. Consulting v. Gabriel" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Charlie Hola guilty of second degree murder. Defendant’s conviction arises from a murder capping a three-hour crime spree. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 48 years to life. Defendant originally raised several contentions related to the natural and probable consequences theory underlying his second degree murder conviction, including that insufficient evidence supported his conviction based on that theory and he was entitled to relief under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). He also claimed his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to speculative gang testimony; that insufficient evidence supported a finding that he acted for the benefit of a criminal gang; that there was instructional error related to the natural and probable consequences doctrine relative to self-defense and mutual combat; and that certain conduct credits the trial court withheld for jail misconduct must be restored. After oral argument and supplemental briefing, the parties agreed defendant’s murder conviction could not stand in light of the Senate Bill 1437 and Senate Bill 775 amendments. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether the Court of Appeal should also remand the matter to the trial court to afford the prosecution the opportunity to advance a valid murder theory at a new trial. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed defendant’s murder conviction and vacated the associated enhancements. The Court held that the State was entitled to retry defendant on the murder charge based on a valid theory of liability if it could do so in good faith, along with the associated enhancements. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the Court rejected defendant’s other contentions or concluded that they were moot in light of the reversal of his second degree murder conviction. View "California v. Hola" on Justia Law

During Defendant’s murder trial, the prosecution used five of its eight peremptory challenges to remove Black women from the jury panel. Defense counsel raised a Batson challenge at trial. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The court accepted the prosecution’s proffered reasons for the use of its peremptory challenges. Defendant was convicted and appealed.When the trial court requires the prosecution to place its reasons for exercising peremptory challenges on the record, an appellate court skips the first two steps of the Batson analysis and goes straight to considering the credibility of the prosecution’s stated reasons and whether the record as a whole reveals a discriminatory motive for removing even a single prospective juror.The court found that there was no valid basis to strike at least one of the Black women. Moreover, there were several reasons why the struck panel member should have been an “ideal juror” from the prosecution’s perspective. The prosecutor’s stated reason for striking the juror “didn’t hold up" and appeared to be based on impermissible discrimination. View "P. v. Salinas" on Justia Law