Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The defendant was convicted of felony vehicle burglary, being a felon in possession of tear gas, and misdemeanor receiving stolen property. During jury selection, the defendant, who was in jail, did not appear in court. The bailiff reported that the defendant refused transport, leading the court to find his absence voluntary and proceed with jury selection. The defendant missed another day but was present for the rest of the trial. He was sentenced to two years and eight months in county jail, with part of the sentence suspended for mandatory supervision.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco handled the initial trial. The defendant argued that his constitutional right to be present was violated due to insufficient evidence of voluntary absence and the denial of a continuance. The court found substantial evidence of voluntary absence based on the bailiff's testimony and denied the continuance. The defendant was convicted on most counts, and the court later modified his sentence.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the defendant was voluntarily absent, including the bailiff's report and jail procedures. The court also ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, considering the potential manipulation by the defendant and the inconvenience to jurors and court resources. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions but accepted the Attorney General's concession that the defendant was entitled to four additional days of presentence custody credits. View "People v. Hersom" on Justia Law

In 1998, Khyle Armando Briscoe, then 21, participated in a robbery with Shaun P. During the robbery, Briscoe and Shaun P. both had guns. A struggle ensued, resulting in Ben P., the robbery victim, fatally shooting Shaun P. Briscoe was charged with first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary, with firearm-use enhancements and a special circumstance of murder during a robbery and burglary. A jury convicted Briscoe on all counts, and he was sentenced to life without parole.Briscoe filed a motion in 2022 for a parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051, which allows certain youth offenders to seek parole but excludes those sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder. He argued that this exclusion violated equal protection under the California and U.S. Constitutions. The trial court denied his motion, adhering to the majority view that section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Briscoe appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court noted that section 3051’s exclusion of youth offenders sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder was previously upheld in People v. Hardin. However, Briscoe raised a narrower challenge, arguing that excluding youth offenders sentenced under section 190.2, subdivision (d) for special circumstance murder, while including those convicted of first-degree felony murder under section 189, subdivision (e)(3), violated equal protection. The court agreed, finding no rational basis for treating these equally culpable offenders differently.The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for a Franklin proceeding and a section 3051 parole hearing, holding that section 3051’s exclusion of youth offenders sentenced under section 190.2, subdivision (d) for murder during a robbery or burglary violated equal protection. View "People v. Briscoe" on Justia Law

In March 2010, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of attempted murder and actively participating in a criminal street gang, resulting in a 22-year prison sentence. Approximately 12 years later, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The trial court admitted statements the defendant made during a parole risk assessment interview and testimony from a parole hearing, ultimately denying the petition.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County initially handled the case, where the defendant's petition for resentencing was reviewed. The trial court admitted the parole hearing transcript and the defendant’s statements from the comprehensive risk assessment, despite objections from the defense counsel on grounds of hearsay and constitutional violations. The court found that the defendant’s statements demonstrated an intent to kill and denied the petition for resentencing.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The defendant argued that his statements and testimony from the parole proceedings should be subject to use immunity and were involuntary. The appellate court held that statements made in preparation for, and during, a parole hearing are not subject to use immunity under the reasoning of People v. Coleman and related authorities. The court also found that the statements were not involuntary, as the defendant was advised of his rights and chose to participate. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in admitting the statements and testimony, affirming the order denying the petition for resentencing. View "People v. Zavala" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three felonies related to firearm and ammunition possession. During a traffic stop, police officers discovered a loaded handgun in his vehicle. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the traffic stop was unduly prolonged and pretextual, and dismissed the case.The Sonoma County Superior Court found that the traffic stop was pretextual and unduly prolonged, as the officers could have issued the citation at the gas station where they first observed the defendant. The court also noted that new legislation would make pretextual stops illegal, although this law was not yet in effect. The court concluded that the stop was designed to allow time for a canine unit to arrive and conduct a search, which it deemed unreasonable.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court's finding of an unduly prolonged stop was unsupported by substantial evidence. The appellate court noted that the traffic stop began when the vehicle was pulled over, not when the officers first observed the defendant. The court found that the time taken to write the citation and conduct the canine search was within the normal duration for such activities. Additionally, the court clarified that the new Vehicle Code section 2806.5, which prohibits pretextual stops, was not in effect at the time of the stop and does not alter the federal constitutional analysis regarding pretextual stops. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order suppressing the evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "People v. Valle" on Justia Law

In 2017, Michael Ingram was found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) and committed to the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for an indeterminate term under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). In 2020, he filed a petition for conditional release, arguing he was not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if released under supervision and treatment in the community. The trial court denied his petition, and Ingram appealed, challenging both the trial court’s decision and the constitutionality of the SVPA’s conditional release provisions.The Superior Court of Sacramento County initially handled the case, where a jury found Ingram to be an SVP. Ingram then filed a petition for conditional release, which the trial court denied. The court found that Ingram had not made significant progress in his treatment program and that his risk to the community remained unchanged. The court also noted that while Ingram might receive better treatment in the community, the issue before the court was whether he could be safely released, not whether he could receive better treatment elsewhere.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the denial of Ingram’s petition. The appellate court noted that all experts agreed Ingram continued to meet the definition of an SVP and that he had not yet learned to control his sexually violent behavior. The court also found that Ingram’s proposed alternative conditional release program, which included 24/7, one-on-one supervision, was neither reasonable nor required by the SVPA. Additionally, the court rejected Ingram’s constitutional challenges, noting that these issues were not properly raised in the lower court and that Ingram lacked standing to challenge potential delays in finding housing for conditionally released SVPs. View "People v. Ingram" on Justia Law

The City of Gridley operates an electric utility and approved reduced electric rates for residential users in September 2020. Plaintiffs, residential ratepayers, challenged these rates, alleging they resulted in charges exceeding the reasonable cost of providing electric service, thus constituting a tax without voter approval in violation of article XIII C of the California Constitution. They also claimed the rates violated the state and federal takings clauses under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate and class action complaint, alleging the City set rates higher than necessary and transferred excess revenues to its general fund.The Superior Court of Butte County denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the rates resulted in excessive charges and whether plaintiffs had a property interest in continued electric service. The court rejected the City’s argument that article XIII C was inapplicable because the City did not impose, extend, or increase a tax when it approved reduced rates. The court also found that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine could apply to plaintiffs' takings claim.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the City was entitled to relief. The court found article XIII C inapplicable because the City did not impose, extend, or increase any tax by reducing its electric rates. The court also found the unconstitutional conditions doctrine inapplicable, as it applies only in the land-use permitting context, not to user fees like the electric rates in question. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to set aside its order denying the City’s motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion. The City’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the stay of proceedings in the trial court was vacated. View "City of Gridley v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Sutter’s Place, Inc., which operates Bay 101 Casino, challenged the City of San Jose's annual cardroom regulation fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional tax imposed without voter approval and violated due process. The fee was equally divided between Bay 101 and Casino M8trix, the only two cardrooms in the city. The plaintiff contended that the fee included costs outside the constitutional exception for regulatory charges and that the equal allocation was unfair.The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a bench trial and found the fee valid, covering reasonable regulatory costs and fairly allocated between the cardrooms. The court determined the fee was for regulatory functions, the amount was necessary to cover costs, and the equal allocation was reasonable given the equal number of tables and benefits to both cardrooms. The court also excluded certain expert testimony from the plaintiff and denied a separate due process trial.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It upheld the trial court's finding that the equal allocation of the fee was reasonable but reversed the judgment on other grounds. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not specifically determining whether all costs included in the fee fell within the constitutional exception for regulatory charges. The case was remanded for the trial court to identify and exclude any non-permissible costs from the fee and to conduct further proceedings on the due process claim if necessary. The appellate court also reversed the award of costs to the city and directed the trial court to reassess costs after applying the correct legal standards. View "Sutter's Place, Inc. v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

Nathaniel DiMaggio filed a petition for writ of mandate to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cellphone and tablet. DiMaggio argued that the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office exceeded the scope of the search warrant and that the trial court erred in finding the sheriff’s office acted in good faith. The Monterey County District Attorney contended that the sheriff’s office properly executed the search warrant and acted in good faith.The Monterey County Superior Court issued a search warrant authorizing the search of DiMaggio’s cellphone and tablet for evidence related to a sexual assault within a specific date range. During the search, the sheriff’s office found images of suspected child pornography, which were outside the specified date range. DiMaggio filed a motion to suppress this evidence, arguing it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court found that the sheriff’s office exceeded the scope of the warrant but denied the motion to suppress, applying the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and agreed with DiMaggio. The court found that the sheriff’s office knowingly exceeded the scope of the search warrant by including items without timestamps, which were not authorized by the warrant. The court held that the good faith exception did not apply because the actions of the sheriff’s office were not objectively reasonable and were part of a standard protocol that disregarded the warrant’s limitations. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to suppress and to enter a new order suppressing any evidence obtained outside the date and time limitations set forth in the search warrant. View "DiMaggio v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 1987, Michael Hill was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death. Hill maintained that the murders were committed by Michael McCray, whose statements to the police incriminated both himself and Hill. McCray did not testify at trial, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, but his statements were admitted under the hearsay rule. Decades later, Hill discovered that the prosecution had failed to disclose a promise not to prosecute McCray for his involvement in the case. Hill filed a habeas corpus petition alleging violations of Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.The trial court dismissed Hill’s claims, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case. The court concluded that the evidence against Hill was overwhelming and that the failure to disclose the non-prosecution agreement did not undermine confidence in the verdict. The court also found that Hill did not plead that false evidence was presented to the jury, as required under Napue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that Hill established a prima facie case for both Brady and Napue violations. The court noted that McCray’s testimony at the preliminary hearing was misleading and that the prosecution’s suppression of the non-prosecution agreement allowed McCray to assert his privilege against self-incrimination, leading to the admission of his statements without cross-examination. The court concluded that the suppressed evidence was material and could have affected the jury’s verdict. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the trial court to issue an order to show cause. View "In re Hill" on Justia Law

In this case, two defendants were tried for multiple assaultive incidents that occurred in 2017. The first incident involved the defendants accosting a man in Pacific Beach, where one defendant punched the victim and the other stole his bike. The second incident took place in Chula Vista, where the defendants attempted to rob a man carrying a shopping bag. The third incident occurred in the Gaslamp Quarter, where one defendant punched an inebriated man, leading to a brawl during which the other defendant fatally stabbed one man and seriously injured another.The Superior Court of San Diego County found both defendants guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery for the Pacific Beach and Chula Vista incidents. One defendant was also found guilty of premeditated murder, attempted murder, and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury for the Gaslamp Quarter incident. The other defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury for the same incident.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court erred by giving a modified version of CALCRIM No. 375, which used a preponderance of the evidence standard for the jury’s consideration of evidence of the charged Pacific Beach and Chula Vista crimes. This instruction effectively lowered the prosecution’s burden of proving those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a structural error is reversible per se.The Court of Appeal reversed both defendants’ convictions for the Pacific Beach and Chula Vista crimes (counts 5–7) and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the remaining convictions related to the Gaslamp Quarter incident, finding no prejudicial error in those respects. View "P. v. Holliday" on Justia Law