Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Two police officers on routine patrol stopped a car for a traffic violation. Officer Booth approached the driver, Luis Ramirez, while Officer Driscoll approached the passenger side. Booth ordered Ramirez out of the car after noticing a bulge at Ramirez’s waistband, suspecting he might be armed. As Ramirez exited the car, Driscoll saw a handgun behind the driver’s seat. Ramirez filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the stop.The Superior Court of Orange County granted Ramirez’s motion to suppress, reasoning that there was no change in circumstances regarding the officers’ safety between the beginning of the stop and the point at which Ramirez was removed from his car. The court dismissed the case because the prosecution could not proceed without the excluded evidence. The Orange County District Attorney appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that under the Fourth Amendment, once a vehicle is lawfully detained for a traffic violation, an officer may order the driver to exit the vehicle without any additional justification. The court determined that Officer Booth’s actions were permissible and that there were no Fourth Amendment violations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal order and remanded the matter with directions to deny Ramirez’s motion to suppress evidence. View "P. v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

In 2019, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 218 (AB 218), which allowed plaintiffs to bring childhood sexual assault claims against public entities within a three-year window, even if those claims were previously barred by statutes of limitations or claim presentation requirements. A.M.M. filed a complaint against the West Contra Costa Unified School District, alleging sexual assaults by a District employee from 1979 to 1983. The District argued that reviving such claims constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds under the California Constitution. The trial court overruled the District’s demurrer, leading the District to seek writ review.The trial court sustained the demurrer for the first three causes of action but overruled it regarding the gift clause argument. The District then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ of mandate to sustain the demurrer in its entirety. The appellate court issued an order to show cause, and both parties filed responses, including amicus curiae briefs from various entities.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that AB 218’s retroactive waiver of the claim presentation requirement did not constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds. The court reasoned that the waiver did not create new substantive liability but merely removed a procedural barrier to existing claims. The court also found that AB 218 served a valid public purpose by providing relief to victims of childhood sexual assault, aligning with the state’s interest in public welfare. Additionally, the court ruled that the District lacked standing to assert due process claims under both the federal and California Constitutions. The petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Travis Mitchell Hicks was convicted by a jury of attempted murder and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, among other charges, following a shooting incident at a bar. The altercation began with an argument between Hicks and the victim, who was intoxicated. Hicks claimed he shot the victim in self-defense after being threatened. The victim was shot in the arm and back, resulting in paralysis. Hicks fled but was apprehended the next day and eventually admitted to the shooting. The Riverside County District Attorney charged Hicks with multiple offenses, including attempted murder and assault, and the jury found him guilty on all counts.In the Superior Court of Riverside County, Hicks's defense objected to the prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to dismiss an African-American juror, arguing it was discriminatory under Batson v. Kentucky and People v. Wheeler. The trial court allowed the challenge, accepting the prosecutor's reasons that the juror's prior felony convictions and opinionated demeanor were race-neutral justifications. Hicks was sentenced to a combined determinate and indeterminate prison term.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in accepting the prosecutor's reasons for the peremptory challenge. The appellate court determined that the juror's prior felony convictions and alleged opinionated demeanor were not supported by the record as valid, race-neutral reasons. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "P. v. Hicks" on Justia Law

The defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of drugs and bribing an executive officer. During the arrest, the officer observed signs of intoxication and conducted field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed. A preliminary alcohol screening test showed no alcohol, leading the officer to suspect drug use. The defendant admitted to using cannabis and Alprazolam. At the police station, the defendant initially agreed to a blood test but later refused without a warrant. The officer obtained a warrant, and the blood test confirmed the presence of drugs. The defendant was charged and convicted of DUI and bribery.The Superior Court of California, County of Marin, handled the initial trial. The court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 2130, allowing them to infer consciousness of guilt from the defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test. The defendant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to three years of probation and 180 days in jail. The defendant appealed, arguing that the jury instruction was improper because he had a constitutional right to refuse the blood test without a warrant.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the instruction was proper, stating that while the Fourth Amendment prohibits criminal penalties for refusing a blood test without a warrant, it does not prohibit all consequences. The court emphasized that implied consent laws can impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences for refusal. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the instruction did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. View "People v. Bolourchi" on Justia Law

Jose Oliveras, serving a life sentence without parole, was found with over 600 pornographic images on a tablet assigned to him. The images were stored on a removable SIM card. Oliveras was charged with possession of contraband under California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 15, section 3006(c). He pled guilty to the administrative violation and received counseling without reprimand. However, at a subsequent classification review, his computer clearance was rescinded due to the violation, which was interpreted as computer fraud or abuse under CCR sections 3040(h) and 3041.3(j).Oliveras filed a grievance with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), arguing that his violation did not constitute computer fraud or abuse. The CDCR denied his grievance and subsequent appeal. He then petitioned the superior court, which upheld the decision, stating it was supported by "some evidence." Oliveras filed a habeas corpus petition with the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District. While the petition was pending, his computer clearance was reauthorized at an annual review.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that the issue was not moot despite the reauthorization of Oliveras's computer clearance. The court found that the classification of his violation as computer fraud or abuse could still affect future decisions. The court held that Oliveras's conduct did not constitute computer fraud or abuse under Penal Code section 502, as there was no evidence he used the tablet's functions to obtain or distribute the images, nor did his actions align with the legislative intent behind section 502. The court reversed the October 2022 revocation of Oliveras's computer clearance and ordered the removal of any reference to this revocation from his file. View "In re Oliveras" on Justia Law

Carlton Loeber, the trustor of an irrevocable trust owning two undeveloped properties within the Lakeside Joint School District, sought to place an initiative on the ballot to exempt taxpayers over 65 from any district parcel tax on undeveloped parcels. The district declined to call the election, citing cost concerns and legal objections. Loeber filed a petition for a writ of mandate to compel the district to place the initiative on the ballot. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that Loeber lacked standing.The trial court found that Loeber did not have a direct and substantial interest in the initiative because he did not personally own property in the district and failed to show that the trust could qualify for the exemption. The court also rejected Loeber’s public interest standing argument, noting the lack of public engagement and the significant cost to the district. The court concluded that the public need was not weighty enough to warrant the application of the public interest exception.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that Loeber had standing under the public interest exception, given the significant public right at issue concerning the initiative power. However, the court concluded that the proposed initiative did not fall within the scope of Article XIII C, Section 3 of the California Constitution, which allows initiatives to reduce or repeal local taxes. The court held that the initiative, which sought to create a new exemption for certain taxpayers, did not constitute "reducing" a tax within the meaning of the constitutional provision. Consequently, the district was not obligated to call an election on the initiative. The judgment was modified to deny the writ petition and affirmed as modified. View "Loeber v. Lakeside Joint School District" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant, Haadi Bolourchi, who was convicted of driving under the influence of a drug and bribing an executive officer. The defendant was pulled over by Officer Kevin Finerty for vehicle code violations. The officer noticed signs of intoxication and conducted several field sobriety tests, which Bolourchi failed. Bolourchi admitted to smoking cannabis the day before and was arrested. Officer Finerty requested Bolourchi to submit to a blood test, but Bolourchi insisted that a warrant be obtained first. Bolourchi also offered Officer Finerty $1,000 to let him go, which was interpreted as a bribe.In the trial court, Bolourchi was convicted of driving under the influence of a drug and bribing an executive officer. The court suspended the imposition of sentence, placed Bolourchi on three years’ probation, and ordered a jail term of 180 days. Bolourchi appealed, arguing that the court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 2130, an instruction that states a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test as required by California’s implied consent statute may show consciousness of guilt.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that a motorist's refusal to cooperate in the taking of a blood test unless a warrant is first obtained can be used as an adverse inference of consciousness of guilt in a DUI trial. The court found no instructional error in the use of CALCRIM No. 2130 and rejected Bolourchi's argument that he had a constitutional right to demand a warrant before submitting to a blood draw. The court concluded that while the Fourth Amendment required police to obtain a warrant to conduct a blood draw, Bolourchi could still face an adverse inference at his trial on a DUI charge as a cost of refusing a blood test. View "People v. Bolourchi" on Justia Law

In 1999, Sylvester Williams was convicted of indecent exposure with a prior conviction and sentenced to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law, plus an additional two years for two prior prison term enhancements. In 2012, Williams filed a petition for recall of sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The trial court denied Williams’ petition after finding that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. In 2023, Williams sought relief for his newly invalid prior prison term enhancements, arguing that he was entitled to be resentenced to a maximum sentence of six years as a “two-striker” under the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act. The trial court agreed and resentenced Williams to six years, struck the two prior prison term enhancements, and deemed the sentence satisfied.The People appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act when resentencing Williams under section 1172.75 due to invalid prior prison term enhancements. They contended that by doing so, the court bypassed the public safety inquiry required by section 1170.126 of the Three Strikes Reform Act, and that section 1172.75 thereby constitutes an improper amendment of the Three Strikes Reform Act.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District agreed with the People. It held that applying the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act to reduce a defendant’s indeterminate life term to a determinate term when the defendant is being resentenced under section 1172.75 due to an invalid prior prison term enhancement unconstitutionally amends the resentencing procedure and requirements set forth in section 1170.126 of the voter-approved Three Strikes Reform Act. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order resentencing Williams to a six-year term and to hold a new resentencing hearing at which Williams’s sentence of 25 years to life is reinstated. View "People v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In August 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) introduced the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, a color-coded, risk-based framework for managing restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Blueprint included restrictions on business activities, including customer capacity limitations. Plaintiffs, Central California businesses and their owners, filed suit against the Governor and others responsible for creating and enforcing the Blueprint, alleging that its creation and enforcement were unlawful. They claimed that the Governor and CDPH lacked statutory authority to implement the Blueprint, and that broadly interpreting the Emergency Services Act (ESA) and Health and Safety Code section 120140 conferred unfettered discretion on defendants to impose restrictions on businesses, violating the California Constitution’s non-delegation doctrine.The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Blueprint. On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as moot because the Governor had rescinded the Blueprint. After this, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, holding that the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Newsom v. Superior Court (Gallagher) had rejected the same challenges to the Governor’s emergency powers that plaintiffs assert. The court entered judgment in defendants’ favor.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. The court followed Gallagher and concluded it governs the outcome of this appeal. The court held that the ESA permitted the Governor to amend or make new laws and did not violate the constitutional separation of powers by delegating quasi-legislative power to the Governor in an emergency. The court also found that the ESA contained several safeguards on the exercise of the power, including that the Governor must terminate the state of emergency as soon as possible and that the Legislature may terminate the emergency by passing a concurrent resolution. View "Ghost Golf, Inc. v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The case involves the City of San José and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA). The city had a significant unfunded liability in its pension plans for city employees. To address this shortfall, the city council adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of bonds, provided they result in savings for the city. The HJTA argued that this action violated the constitutional debt limitation, which prohibits cities from incurring any indebtedness or liability exceeding the income and revenue provided for a given year without the assent of two-thirds of the voters.The trial court upheld the city's actions, ruling that the bond issuance falls under the obligation imposed by law exception to the debt limitation. The HJTA appealed this decision, arguing that the city's actions violate the constitutional debt limitation and lack statutory authority.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, affirmed the judgment, but for different reasons than the trial court. The appellate court concluded that the city has not incurred any indebtedness or liability exceeding its annual income and revenue because the city's actions do not trigger the constitutional debt limitation. The court also found that the city has the authority under state law to issue the bonds. View "City of San Jose v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn." on Justia Law