Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant Harry Howard filed a motion for a Franklin proceeding three decades after committing the underlying offense. By that time, he had already introduced youth-related evidence at a prior parole hearing, but he had never requested a Franklin proceeding. The court denied his motion on its face because it failed to show what additional evidence merited preservation. The Court of Appeal found the trial court prematurely denied Howard’s request. "His motion met the legal requirements to initiate the Franklin process. As such, the court should have provided Howard an opportunity to explain the evidence he sought to introduce before determining whether a Franklin proceeding was warranted." Judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "California v. Howard" on Justia Law

Lange drove past California Highway Patrol Officer Weikert, who noticed Lange was blaring music and honking unnecessarily. Weikert followed Lange, activating his overhead lights to signal that Lange should pull over. Seconds later, Lange arrived at the driveway of his home and drove into his attached garage. Weikert followed Lange into the garage and began questioning him. Lange appeared intoxicated. Weikert conducted field sobriety tests, which Lange failed. Lange’s blood-alcohol content was over three times the legal limit. Lange, charged with DUI and operating a vehicle’s sound system at excessive levels, unsuccessfully moved to suppress all evidence collected after Weikert entered Lange’s garage.In 2019, the court of appeal affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, reasoning that an officer’s hot pursuit into the house to prevent the suspect from frustrating the arrest is always permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the “flight of a suspected misdemeanant does not always justify a warrantless entry into a home”; an “officer must consider all the circumstances in a pursuit case to determine whether there is a law enforcement emergency,” and vacated for reconsideration.The court of appeal again affirmed the denial of the motion. Weikert followed binding state appellate law when he entered the garage in pursuit of Lange. The exclusionary rule does not require exclusion of the evidence seized in Lange’s home, even though under the Supreme Court’s new pronouncement. View "People v. Lange" on Justia Law

Joanne R., a conservatee subject to a conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, contends that the trial court provided her an inadequate jury trial waiver advisement and improperly induced her to waive her right to a jury trial by stating she could either have a court trial that day or a jury trial nine months later.The Court of Appeal concluded that, although it is concerned by the delay in providing conservatees jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no violation of Joanne's statutory right to a jury trial. However, the court cautioned the superior court that a nine-month delay for a conservatee to have a jury trial where the conservatorship would otherwise end in a year, absent a health emergency, raises serious constitutional concerns in light of the significant liberty interests at stake. The court urged the superior court to dedicate the necessary additional resources to LPS jury trials so that conservatees may exercise their right to a jury trial in a timely manner. The court noted that failure to do so likely violates a conservatee's constitutional right to due process. View "Stusser v. Joanne R." on Justia Law

Petitioner Derrick Blakes sought review of the denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of a search of his car following a traffic stop. He claimed the trial court erred in finding the warrantless search supported by probable cause and was a valid impound search. The Court of Appeal found the facts adduced by the officers before the warrantless entry of the car were: illegally tinted windows, defendant taking one-tenth of a mile to pull over and stop, the smell of marijuana emanating from the car, his having a suspended license, and his having a prior arrest for felon in possession of a firearm. The Court concluded these facts did not provide probable cause that contraband or evidence of illegal activity was in the car. The Court determined the evidence showed the impound decision was based on an investigative pretext rather than serving a community caretaking function. The Court thus granted petitioner's request for mandamus relief, and remanded this case to the trial court with directions to grant the suppression motion. View "Blakes v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a writer, filed suit against the CAA parties for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, alleging they had mishandled their representation of him in several different ways.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying the CAA parties' special motion to strike allegations in the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16. Although the court agreed that the challenged conduct arises from protected speech activity, the court concluded that when the context and content of the specific allegedly wrongful statements are considered, their degree of connection to a topic of public interest is insufficient to warrant protection under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4). In this case, the creative aspects of his work that plaintiff claims were misappropriated, privately communicated to a targeted audience of one, did not contribute to the public conversation about a matter of public interest. View "Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC" on Justia Law

A police officer spotted defendant Enrique Jimenez and his two teenaged sons by some trash cans in a field. They jumped into an SUV and drove away. The officer, believing they had committed illegal dumping, tried to pull them over. Instead, defendant dropped off his sons near his house, then led the police in a pursuit. When the police took a closer look at the trash cans, they found that one contained a dead body. Defendant confessed that he had intentionally stabbed the victim to death. Defendant was convicted by jury of first degree murder with an enhancement for personal use of a deadly weapon; recklessly evading an officer; and two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer. He was sentenced to a total of 29 years to life, plus fines, fees, and ancillary orders. On appeal, defendant contended, among other things, that his confession was involuntary because the police induced it by threatening to charge his sons with the murder. After review of the trial court record, the Court of Appeal agreed: the interrogating officer told defendant that he knew defendant’s sons were innocent of murder, but he intended to charge them anyway — unless defendant confessed. "We cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if defendant’s confession had been excluded, he would still have been convicted of first degree murder. Indeed, it is reasonably probable that the jury would have found him guilty of a lesser offense, such as second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter, or acquitted him on this count." The judgment was reversed solely with respect to the conviction on count 1 (murder) and with respect to the sentence; in all other respects, it was affirmed. On remand, if the State did not bring defendant to a new trial on count 1 in a timely manner, then the Court's remittitur would be deemed to modify the verdict by striking the conviction on count 1 and the trial court would have to promptly resentence defendant. View "California v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

A political consultant designed two campaign mailers that were distributed to voters in a local city council election. The mailers included statements about a local real estate developer and his litigation history with the city, and linked the developer to certain candidates. The developer sued the political consultant for libel based on allegedly false statements about him in the mailers, and the political consultant in turn filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that although the complaint arose from protected conduct, the developer demonstrated a probability of prevailing. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed and therefore affirmed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion. View "Edward v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Defendant Allen Benzler was sentenced in 2014 for offenses he committed when he was 18 years old. He appealed the summary denial of his motion for a "Franklin" hearing under California Penal Code section 1203.01, contending he satisfied the eligibility criteria for such a hearing laid out in In re Cook, 7 Cal.5th 439 (2019), and did not previously have an opportunity to present evidence related to his status as a juvenile offender. To this, the Court of Appeal concurred, reversed the trial court’s order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "California v. Benzler" on Justia Law

Defendants Jamie Ramirez and Albert Villa participated in a beating of another inmate while in custody at Southwest Detention Center. A jury convicted them of one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. The jury also found true the allegation that defendants committed the assault “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with” a criminal street gang for purposes of the STEP Act gang enhancement. On appeal, defendants argued the record contained insufficient evidence to support their gang enhancements. During trial, the prosecution presented evidence that defendants and the inmate who orchestrated the assault each belonged to different Riverside County gangs before they were incarcerated but that they committed the assault for the benefit of the prison gang “La Eme” (also known as the Mexican Mafia). Despite this theory, the prosecution proved that the three Riverside County gangs satisfied the STEP Act’s definition of a “criminal street gang,” but didn’t present such proof for La Eme, the gang the assault was related to. Because the record contained no nexus between the assault and a proven gang, Court of Appeal concluded the enhancements could not stand. It therefore vacated that aspect of the jury’s verdict but otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

During an altercation outside a bar after last call, defendant-appellant Charles Waxlax stabbed Erik Kimbler in the back with a military-grade knife. Kimbler suffered serious injuries but survived. At trial, the jury rejected Waxlax’s claim of self-defense and convicted him of the four crimes the prosecution had charged him with: attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, and attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime. Defendant was sentenced 11 years in prison, consisting of nine years for the attempted murder conviction and two years for the dissuading conviction. The judge imposed, but stayed under Penal Code section 654, three-year sentences on the two assault convictions. On appeal, Defendant argued the omission of three self-defense related jury instructions required reversal of his murder and assault convictions: (1) an instruction on the doctrine of transferred self-defense; (2) CALCRIM No. 3470, which defined self-defense for all nonhomicide offenses, and (3) a pinpoint instruction that his specific fear of imminent danger arose from his belief he was being robbed. Defendant also argued his dual assault convictions at the very least violated Penal Code section 954 because force-likely assault and assault with a deadly weapon were different statements of the same offense and his charges were based on the same conduct - his single act of stabbing Kimbler. The Court of Appeal found Defendant's claims of instructional error meritless, but agreed his dual assault convictions violated section 954. The Court therefore vacated the force-likely assault conviction in count 2 and struck the fees associated with that count. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "California v. Waxlax" on Justia Law