Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Jesse Gonzalez, Jr. was convicted in 2012 of attempted deliberate premeditated murder and assault with a deadly weapon, with enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury and using a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to 17 years to life with the possibility of parole and credited with 700 days served. The sentence was later recalled, but the credit total remained unchanged. On direct appeal, the court corrected the sentence to life with the possibility of parole plus six years but did not address the credit count. Gonzalez filed a habeas corpus petition in 2022, claiming his credits were miscalculated. The trial court denied the petition, but the appellate court granted a partial remand for recalculating credits, denying Gonzalez's request to be present.The Superior Court of Imperial County recalculated the credits but initially made an error. After a letter from appellate counsel, the court corrected the credits to 771 days. Gonzalez appealed, arguing that the incorrect credit calculation was an unauthorized sentence and that he was entitled to full resentencing and to be present during the recalculation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that a full resentencing was not warranted because the correction of custody credits did not affect the overall sentence or require the exercise of judicial discretion. The court also concluded that Gonzalez's presence was not necessary for the recalculation of credits, as it was a ministerial act. The court found no prejudice to Gonzalez from the trial court's actions and affirmed the order. View "People v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Dana Stubblefield, was convicted in 2020 of forcible rape and related offenses and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. On direct appeal, the conviction was found legally invalid due to a violation of the California Racial Justice Act (RJA). The appellate court reversed the judgment, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded the case for new proceedings. Before the remittitur issued, Stubblefield filed a motion for release on his own recognizance or on bail, which the trial court denied, citing lack of jurisdiction.The trial court, upon receiving the jury's verdict in July 2020, remanded Stubblefield into custody, and he was sentenced in October 2020. Stubblefield appealed in November 2020, arguing that the prosecution violated the RJA. The appellate court agreed, reversed the conviction, and remanded the case. Stubblefield then sought release pending the final outcome of the appeal, but the trial court denied the motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction without the remittitur. Stubblefield petitioned the appellate court for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to rule on his motion.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on Stubblefield's motion for release pending appeal, despite the remittitur not yet issuing. The court held that the trial court's jurisdiction to hear a motion for release is supported by the Penal Code, which allows for bail after conviction and pending appeal. The appellate court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its decision and rule on the merits of Stubblefield's motion for release. View "Stubblefield v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2011, the defendant was convicted by a jury of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle and six counts of assault with a firearm. The jury found true the allegations that the defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death. The court sentenced the defendant to a total of 32 years to life in prison.The defendant later filed a petition for resentencing under Assembly Bill 600 and Penal Code section 1172.1, arguing that he was a youth at the time of his conviction and had since participated in self-help groups and college courses while incarcerated. He requested the court to consider his youth and personal growth in resentencing. The Superior Court of Fresno County denied the petition, stating that under section 1172.1, a defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court.On appeal, the defendant's counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo, asserting that there were no arguable issues on appeal. The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, notified the defendant that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, following the procedure outlined in People v. Delgadillo, which held that the Wende/Anders procedure does not apply to appeals from the denial of postconviction relief under section 1172.6. The court concluded that due process does not require independent review in this context and dismissed the appeal. View "P. v. Rosemond" on Justia Law

In 2017, the defendant pleaded no contest to attempted second-degree robbery with firearm enhancements, resisting a peace officer, hit and run, and assault with a firearm. He also admitted to a prior strike conviction. The court sentenced him to a total of 27 years and 8 months in prison. In 2019, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider the restitution fine, which was denied. In 2023, he filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, which was also denied.The defendant then filed a "Request for Recall of Sentence and Resentencing" in March 2024, citing changes in the law under Assembly Bill 600 and section 1172.1. The Superior Court of Tulare County denied the petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction to resentence him. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the court had jurisdiction under the amended laws and should have exercised its discretion.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence the defendant under section 1172.1, as amended by Assembly Bill 600, which allows for resentencing when applicable sentencing laws have changed. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction and that the order denying the petition was appealable because it affected the defendant's substantial rights.The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to exercise its discretion in considering whether to recall and resentence the defendant under the amended laws. View "People v. Chatman" on Justia Law

Steven Ellis was convicted of kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, and making criminal threats. The incident involved Ellis accosting two victims, Yasmin and Blanca, on separate occasions. Ellis forcibly moved Yasmin from a sidewalk to the middle of the street, and later grabbed Blanca from behind, placing her in a chokehold and threatening to kill her and her friend, Jessica. Ellis was identified by the victims and arrested the following day.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found Ellis guilty on multiple counts, including the kidnapping of Yasmin. The jury did not reach a verdict on an alternative attempted kidnapping charge, which was subsequently dismissed. Ellis was sentenced to a total of nine years and six months in state prison, with the upper term of eight years for the kidnapping count. Ellis appealed the conviction, arguing insufficient evidence for the kidnapping charge and improper sentencing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to support the asportation element required for the kidnapping conviction. The movement of Yasmin was deemed not substantial in character, as it did not appreciably change her environment or increase the risk of harm. Consequently, the court reversed Ellis’s kidnapping conviction and reduced it to felony false imprisonment. The case was remanded for a full resentencing.The court also noted that the trial court must reconsider whether the sentences for the criminal threats convictions should be stayed under section 654, as concurrent sentences were initially imposed without proper consideration of this statute. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "People v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Defendant Benny Townes was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his biological daughters, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. Jane Doe 1, who was 16 years old, was raped and impregnated by the defendant. Jane Doe 2, who was 13 and 14 years old at the time, was raped, sodomized, and subjected to lewd acts by the defendant. The defendant admitted to having sexual intercourse with Jane Doe 1 but argued that it was consensual and not against her will.The Superior Court of Riverside County found the defendant guilty on all counts, including forcible rape, incest, lewd acts with a minor, and sodomy. The court sentenced him to 150 years to life in prison. The defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he raped Jane Doe 1 by means of force or duress, and therefore, his convictions on counts 1 and 2 should be reversed. He also argued that the multiple victim enhancement allegations should be reversed if counts 1 and 2 were overturned.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding of duress, which can be purely psychological. The defendant had instilled in Jane Doe 1 the belief that he was the son of God and that disobeying him would result in divine retribution. This psychological coercion was sufficient to constitute duress under Penal Code section 261, subdivisions (a)(2) and (b)(1). The court concluded that the threat of divine retribution, as taught by the defendant, was enough to uphold the convictions for forcible rape. View "People v. Townes" on Justia Law

Christopher Hamilton was convicted of federal felony possession of child pornography. After a federal district court terminated his federal sex offender registration requirement, the California Attorney General notified him of his lifetime obligation to register under California law, pursuant to Penal Code section 290.005(a). The Attorney General determined that the state law equivalent of Hamilton’s federal offense required lifetime registration, placing him in the highest tier of California’s three-tier scheme.Hamilton petitioned the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to terminate his state registration requirement. The Superior Court denied his petition and a subsequent amended motion. Hamilton appealed the denials, arguing violations of equal protection and due process.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the Attorney General’s classification of Hamilton’s offense as a felony with a lifetime registration requirement did not violate equal protection. The court reasoned that the federal offense’s classification as a felony, based on custodial exposure, justified the equivalent state offense’s classification as a felony. Additionally, the court found that the federal offense’s requirement of interstate or foreign commerce provided a rational basis for the different treatment.The court also rejected Hamilton’s due process challenge, concluding that he received notice and had opportunities to contest his tier designation through his petition and amended motion. Lastly, the court dismissed Hamilton’s vagueness challenge, finding that the term “equivalent” in section 290.005(a) was sufficiently clear when considered in context with other statutory provisions.The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s orders denying Hamilton’s petition and amended motion. View "People v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

In 1997, Robert Wayne Rogers committed multiple robberies and was subsequently charged with four counts of robbery and one count of false imprisonment. The charges included allegations of firearm use and prior serious or violent felony convictions, qualifying as strikes under California's Three Strikes law. In 1998, a jury convicted Rogers of three counts of robbery and one count of false imprisonment. The trial court found the prior conviction allegations true and sentenced Rogers to three consecutive terms of 25 years to life, plus additional time for enhancements. Rogers's appeal was denied.In 2014, Rogers filed a petition under the Three Strikes Reform Act (Proposition 36) for resentencing, which was denied because his current offenses included robbery. In 2023, Rogers filed a motion for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, arguing that his prison priors were invalid and requesting a full resentencing, including the striking of his strike priors under section 1385(a) and Romero.The trial court agreed to resentence Rogers, striking six of his seven strike priors and invalidating his prison priors. The court imposed a new determinate sentence of 39 years. The district attorney appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked the authority to strike the strike priors and that the court abused its discretion by not providing adequate reasons for its decision.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the trial court had the authority to strike the strike priors under section 1385(a) and Romero during a resentencing under section 1172.75. However, the appellate court found that the trial court erred by failing to state its reasons for striking the strike priors, as required by section 1385(a). The appellate court reversed the trial court’s resentencing order and remanded the case for a new resentencing hearing where the trial court must provide its reasons for any decision to strike the strike priors. View "People v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Roger Martinez appealed the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. Martinez argued that it was an error for a judge other than the one who originally sentenced him to rule on his petition. The case involved a shooting incident on July 10, 2006, where Martinez was identified as the driver of a car from which shots were fired, resulting in the death of Ezekiel Gonzalez and injuries to others. Martinez initially denied involvement but later admitted to being present during the shooting.Martinez was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted premeditated murder, with gang and firearm allegations. He was sentenced to 120 years to life by Judge Hayden Zacky. Martinez filed a petition for resentencing in December 2021, which was assigned to Judge Kathleen Blanchard. The prosecution conceded a prima facie case for resentencing, leading to an evidentiary hearing.At the evidentiary hearing, Martinez testified that he acted in self-defense during the shooting. However, Judge Blanchard found his testimony not credible, citing inconsistencies with his previous statements. The court denied the petition, concluding that Martinez could still be convicted of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. Martinez contended that he was entitled to have Judge Zacky preside over his resentencing petition. The appellate court held that Martinez forfeited this argument by not raising it earlier. Even if the argument was preserved, the court found no prejudice from Judge Blanchard's assignment, as there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the resentencing petition. View "People v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Mark Vandenburgh was found with illegal drugs and money on two occasions, leading to criminal charges and civil forfeiture proceedings. In the first instance, he was found with methamphetamine and $2,795, and in the second, with methamphetamine, heroin, a short-barreled shotgun, and cash totaling $1,808. The district attorney initiated forfeiture proceedings for the money in both cases. Vandenburgh was convicted in one case and the other was dismissed. Over two years later, he filed a motion to compel the return of the seized money, arguing improper notice of forfeiture proceedings.The Solano County Superior Court granted Vandenburgh’s motion, ruling that the district attorney did not properly follow statutory procedures for giving notice of the seizures. The People moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and subsequently petitioned for a writ of mandate.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the district attorney’s office had properly initiated the forfeiture proceedings and that the police officers served the notices on behalf of the district attorney, not on their own behalf. The court concluded that the procedures followed by the district attorney’s office satisfied the statutory requirements for initiating and providing notice of forfeiture proceedings.The court granted the People’s petition for a writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting Vandenburgh’s motion and to issue a new order denying it. The stay issued on July 9, 2024, was dissolved upon issuance of the remittitur. View "People v. Superior Court (Vandenburgh)" on Justia Law