Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Javonte Eddie Mathis led a high-speed car chase in 2015, resulting in a crash that killed his 16-year-old cousin, Torry Hines. Mathis fled the scene, leaving Hines in the burning car. Mathis, who was on parole, later pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, hit and run resulting in death, second-degree commercial burglary, and possessing a firearm as a felon. He received a 14-year prison sentence, which included a one-year enhancement for a prior prison term.In 2023, the Contra Costa County Superior Court recalled Mathis's sentence due to a change in the law invalidating the one-year enhancement for non-sexually violent offenses. The court reduced his sentence by one year but otherwise left the original sentence intact, resulting in a total of 13 years and four months in prison. Mathis appealed, arguing that the court should have applied additional sentencing provisions that could further reduce his term.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Mathis waived his claim under section 654 by not raising it at the time of his plea agreement. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to impose the upper term for voluntary manslaughter, citing Mathis's conscious disregard for life, the victim's vulnerability, and Mathis's parole status. Additionally, the court determined that the heightened factfinding requirement for aggravating factors did not apply because Mathis was originally sentenced to the upper term under a scheme that complied with the Sixth Amendment.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the trial court had appropriately applied the relevant sentencing rules and changes in the law. View "People v. Mathis" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the defendants, Andre Dimitri Richee and Lee Albert Mooring, were charged with the murder of Daniel Gonzalez and the attempted murders of A.P. and D.M. The incident occurred in September 2020, when a white sedan with tinted windows approached a group of people, including the victims, in an alley. After a brief exchange, the car returned, and shots were fired from the vehicle, resulting in Gonzalez's death and injuries to A.P. and D.M. The prosecution presented evidence, including witness identifications, surveillance footage, and statements made by the defendants, to establish their involvement in the crime.The Superior Court of Riverside County found the defendants guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstances and two counts of attempted murder. The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed by discharging a firearm from a vehicle. The court sentenced both defendants to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus additional prison terms. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court committed instructional errors and that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had indeed committed instructional errors by instructing the jury on invalid theories of murder and attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and by failing to instruct on the elements of the special circumstance charge. The appellate court concluded that these errors undermined the defendants' rights to a fair trial.As a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the defendants' convictions for attempted murder but affirmed their convictions for murder and the special circumstance findings. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, including the possibility of retrial for the attempted murder charges and resentencing. The appellate court also directed the trial court to impose any remaining victim restitution amount jointly and severally upon resentencing. View "People v. Richee" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jayden Demarko McDaniel, a Black individual, was charged with multiple felonies, including attempted first-degree murder and gang-related offenses. McDaniel alleged that he was disparately charged with gang enhancements due to his race, in violation of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA). He sought discovery of evidence from the prosecution to support his claim, arguing that statistical evidence indicated a racial disparity in the application of gang enhancements in San Mateo County.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied McDaniel's motion for discovery, concluding that he failed to demonstrate "good cause" as required by the RJA. The court found that McDaniel's statistical evidence lacked context and did not provide specific facts about his case or other similar cases involving non-Black defendants. McDaniel then filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, which was initially denied without prejudice. He subsequently refiled his petition, which was again denied by the superior court.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that McDaniel had met the low threshold for demonstrating good cause for discovery under the RJA. The court held that McDaniel's county-specific statistical evidence, supported by an expert declaration, presented a plausible factual foundation for his claim of racial bias in charging decisions. The court emphasized that the RJA's discovery standard is intended to be broad and flexible, allowing for various types of evidence, including statistical data, to support a claim of racial disparity.The Court of Appeal vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for a new hearing to reconsider McDaniel's discovery motion, directing the trial court to weigh the potential probative value of the requested information against the burdens of gathering it. View "McDaniel v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Brandon Horton was convicted of stalking and making criminal threats against Seiko H. He was acquitted of making criminal threats against Seiko’s father, John H. At sentencing, the trial court issued a 10-year protective order prohibiting Horton from contacting both Seiko and John, and an order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons. Horton appealed, challenging the inclusion of John in the protective order and the prohibition on possessing deadly or dangerous weapons.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found Horton guilty of making criminal threats against Seiko and stalking her, with the jury finding true several aggravating factors. Horton was acquitted of making criminal threats against John. The trial court sentenced Horton to five years and eight months in state prison, with credit for time served, and issued the protective orders in question.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not err in including John in the protective order, as there was sufficient evidence that Horton committed or attempted to commit harm against John. However, the court found that the trial court erred in extending the weapons prohibition beyond firearms to any deadly or dangerous weapon. The appellate court modified the judgment to strike the order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons, while affirming the judgment as modified. The trial court was directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections. View "P. v. Horton" on Justia Law

The case involves Robert Hinojos, who was convicted of three counts under the gang conspiracy statute, Penal Code section 182.5, related to an attack on a prison inmate by individuals associated with the Mexican Mafia. The underlying offenses were assault by a life prisoner, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. Hinojos appealed, raising several issues, including the application of section 654 to stay two of his convictions, the gang enhancement, the application of the Three Strikes law, the sufficiency of evidence, and jury instructions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County convicted Hinojos and sentenced him to 50 years to life plus additional terms for the gang enhancement. The court imposed sentences on all three counts, which Hinojos argued should be stayed under section 654. He also contended that the gang enhancement should not apply, the Three Strikes law was improperly applied to one count, and the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Additionally, he challenged the jury instructions on the pattern of criminal gang activity and the natural and probable consequences doctrine.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court agreed that two of Hinojos's three convictions must be stayed under section 654 but rejected the rest of his challenges. The court held that the gang enhancement punishes aspects of criminal conduct beyond those in the gang conspiracy statute, and therefore section 654 does not bar its imposition. The court also found that allegations of Three Strikes sentencing as to some counts are sufficient to allege sentencing as to all eligible counts. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the convictions, and any error in not setting aside the indictment was harmless. The court concluded that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the pattern of criminal gang activity and the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury did not convict Hinojos of multiple conspiracies but rather a single conspiracy charged in three ways. The convictions were affirmed, and the case was remanded for the trial court to stay execution of the sentence on two of the three counts. View "P. v. Hinojos" on Justia Law

Andrew Christian Temple was found not guilty of first-degree murder but guilty of second-degree murder. The jury determined that Temple used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. Temple was sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. He appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on considering his mental disorders in determining imperfect self-defense, erred in using CALCRIM No. 225 instead of CALCRIM No. 224, and wrongly denied his motion for a trial continuance to locate a witness.The Superior Court of Riverside initially handled the case, where Temple was convicted. Temple's defense requested jury instructions on imperfect self-defense and consideration of mental disorders, which the court provided. However, Temple contended these instructions were insufficient as they did not explicitly allow the jury to consider his mental disorders in assessing imperfect self-defense. Additionally, Temple's request for a trial continuance to locate a witness was denied by the trial court, which found no good cause for the delay.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that any instructional error regarding imperfect self-defense was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence that Temple used excessive force. The court also found no error in using CALCRIM No. 225, as the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence only for Temple's mental state. Lastly, the court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, as there was no guarantee the witness could be located within a reasonable time. The judgment was affirmed. View "P. v. Temple" on Justia Law

In December 2019, Andrew Christian Temple, Vanessa Marquez, David Deschepper, and others were part of the homeless community in Temecula, California. On December 21, 2019, Temple fatally stabbed Deschepper in a Motel 6 parking lot after an altercation. Temple claimed self-defense, stating that Deschepper had attacked him first. However, evidence showed that Temple used excessive force, including pursuing and repeatedly stabbing Deschepper even after he fell to the ground.The Superior Court of Riverside convicted Temple of second-degree murder, finding that he used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury. Temple was sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. On appeal, Temple argued that the trial court erred in jury instructions regarding imperfect self-defense and mental disorders, in using CALCRIM No. 225 instead of CALCRIM No. 224, and in denying a trial continuance to locate a material witness.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that any instructional error regarding imperfect self-defense was harmless, as the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Temple used excessive force. The court also found no error in using CALCRIM No. 225, as the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence only for Temple’s mental state. Lastly, the court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, as there was no indication the witness could be located within a reasonable time.The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, upholding Temple’s conviction and sentence. View "People v. Temple" on Justia Law

Ryan Anderson pled guilty to multiple charges, including second-degree robbery, grand theft, retail theft, and second-degree burglary. These charges stemmed from a scheme where he stole "Scratchers" lottery tickets from various retailers and redeemed the winning tickets for prize money. The trial court ordered Anderson to pay $179,231.65 in restitution to the California State Lottery, which included the value of the stolen tickets, the prize money he collected, and commissions paid to retailers.The trial court's restitution order was based on a detailed chart presented by the prosecution, which outlined the value of the stolen tickets, the amounts reimbursed to retailers by the Lottery, and the prize money Anderson collected. Anderson did not dispute the Lottery's entitlement to recoup the prize money and retailer commissions but argued that the prize money should have been deducted from the retail value of the stolen tickets. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that the stolen tickets represented lost sales revenue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. Anderson's appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, identifying no specific issues for appeal. The appellate court conducted an independent review and invited supplemental briefs on whether the trial court abused its discretion in calculating the restitution award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the restitution order was appropriate and that the Lottery did not receive a windfall. The court found that the Lottery's reimbursement to retailers shifted the loss from the retailers to the Lottery, and Anderson was responsible for the full amount of the stolen tickets' retail value, the prize money he collected, and the retailer commissions. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Anderson" on Justia Law

In February 2019, Beal Hickman pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 21 years in prison for the 2014 killing of Chadwick Brice. Hickman later filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that changes in the law under Senate Bill No. 1437, which altered the law of imputed malice, should apply to his case. He claimed that he could not be convicted of murder or attempted murder under the new legal standards.The Contra Costa County Superior Court denied Hickman's petition, relying on the precedent set by People v. Reyes, which held that defendants who were convicted by plea after Senate Bill No. 1437 took effect are ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court concluded that since Hickman entered his plea after the effective date of the legislation, he could not demonstrate that he could not be convicted of murder or attempted murder due to the changes enacted by Senate Bill No. 1437.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the reasoning in Reyes and other similar cases, such as People v. Lezama and People v. Gallegos, which held that defendants who were convicted by plea after the effective date of Senate Bill No. 1437 are categorically ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court rejected Hickman's arguments that the law was unsettled after the effective date of Senate Bill No. 1437 and concluded that he had already received the benefits of the legislative changes. Therefore, the order denying Hickman's petition for resentencing was affirmed. View "People v. Hickman" on Justia Law

Alberto Lopez-Barraza was convicted of robbery and murder related to the 2011 killing of Jose Manuel de Jesus but was acquitted of conspiracy to commit robbery. He appealed the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that the trial court improperly relied on factual findings that conflicted with the jury's determination that he was not guilty of conspiracy.Initially, Lopez-Barraza and his co-defendants were charged with murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and robbery, with additional allegations related to firearm use. Lopez-Barraza was found guilty of murder and robbery, but not conspiracy. His murder and robbery convictions were affirmed on appeal, but the special circumstance finding was reversed due to instructional error. On remand, the special circumstance was not retried, and Lopez-Barraza was resentenced to 25 years to life plus one year. In 2019, he filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, which was denied by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in denying the resentencing petition based on findings that Lopez-Barraza participated in planning and preparing for the robbery, which conflicted with the jury's acquittal on the conspiracy charge. The appellate court held that the trial court's reliance on these findings was improper and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing. The trial court was instructed not to rely on any evidence that contradicted the jury's verdict acquitting Lopez-Barraza of conspiracy. The order denying the petition was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "P. v. Lopez-Barraza" on Justia Law