Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A defendant committed several serious offenses, including first-degree murder and attempted murder, when he was 17 years old. In 2002, a jury convicted him of these crimes, and he was sentenced to a total term of 79 years to life with the possibility of parole. The sentence included both determinate and indeterminate terms, with firearm enhancements. The crimes occurred in 2000, and the defendant was not sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), but rather to a lengthy term that could be considered the functional equivalent of LWOP.Years later, the defendant filed a petition in the Superior Court of Ventura County seeking recall of his sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A), which allows for resentencing of juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP. The trial court granted the petition, reasoning that the defendant’s 79-year-to-life sentence was functionally equivalent to LWOP, relying on the reasoning in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 and People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435. The court recalled the sentence, conditionally reversed the conviction and sentence, and certified the matter to juvenile court for further proceedings under Proposition 57. Meanwhile, the defendant received a youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051, but was found unsuitable for parole.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that the defendant was not eligible for relief under section 1170(d)(1)(A) because he was not sentenced to LWOP, and that subsequent legislative changes, specifically section 3051, rendered the Heard rule moot. The court concluded that since the defendant had already received a parole hearing, he was not serving the functional equivalent of LWOP. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s orders. View "P. v. Lara" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with resisting and obstructing an officer, domestic battery with corporal injury, and assault on a peace officer. During jury selection, the defendant sought to remove Juror 122 for cause due to the juror’s background in law enforcement and personal experience with domestic violence, but the Superior Court of Orange County denied the challenge for cause after Juror 122 stated he could remain impartial. The defendant then used a peremptory challenge to remove Juror 122, but the prosecution objected under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, arguing the challenge was based on impermissible grounds. The trial court sustained the objection, keeping Juror 122 on the panel. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant on one count, convicted him of a lesser included offense on another, and acquitted him on the third count.The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, reviewed the case. It reversed the conviction on one count but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. The Appellate Division held that the “deemed prejudicial” standard in section 231.7(j)—which requires automatic reversal if an objection to a peremptory challenge is erroneously denied—does not apply when an objection is erroneously granted. Instead, the court applied traditional harmless error analysis and found the defendant had not shown prejudice from Juror 122’s inclusion.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment. The main holding is that the “deemed prejudicial” standard in section 231.7(j) applies only to erroneous denials of objections to peremptory challenges, not to erroneous grants. When an objection to a peremptory challenge is erroneously granted, traditional rules regarding prejudicial error govern, and automatic reversal is not required. View "P. v. Guzman" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted of first degree murder by torture and assault causing the death of a child. The prosecution’s theory was that the defendant either directly committed the crimes or aided and abetted his codefendant, the child’s mother, in committing them. The jury was instructed only on murder by torture and aiding and abetting, not on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder and assault causing death of a child, but a special circumstance finding was later reversed on appeal due to insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill.After the California Court of Appeal reversed the special circumstance finding but otherwise affirmed the judgment, the trial court resentenced the defendant. Following the enactment of Senate Bill 1437, which limited certain theories of murder liability and created a resentencing procedure under Penal Code section 1172.6, the defendant petitioned for resentencing. He argued that the jury instructions permitted conviction on an impermissible theory of imputed malice. The Napa County Superior Court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, finding the defendant had not shown he could not be convicted of murder under the amended statutes.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the denial. The court held that the record conclusively established the defendant’s ineligibility for relief under section 1172.6 because he was convicted under a theory of murder—murder by torture, either as a direct perpetrator or as an aider and abettor—that remains valid after Senate Bill 1437. The court found that any alleged instructional error did not relate to changes made by the new law and affirmed the trial court’s order denying resentencing. View "People v. Warner" on Justia Law

The case concerns a woman who was charged, along with a codefendant, with the murder of her young daughter, with the special circumstance of torture, and with assault resulting in the death of a child under eight. The prosecution’s theory was that the murder was committed by torture, and that the defendant either directly committed the crimes or aided and abetted her codefendant. The jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine; the only theory presented was murder by torture. The jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder by torture and assault causing death of a child. On direct appeal, the special circumstance finding was reversed for insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill, but the murder conviction was affirmed based on evidence of deliberate and premeditated intent to cause extreme pain for a sadistic purpose.After the passage of Senate Bill 1437, which amended California’s murder statutes to eliminate certain forms of accomplice liability and created a resentencing procedure for those convicted under now-invalid theories, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The Superior Court of Napa County denied the petition at the prima facie stage, finding the defendant ineligible for relief because she was not convicted under any theory affected by the statutory changes. The defendant appealed this denial.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the record conclusively established the defendant’s ineligibility for relief under section 1172.6, as she was convicted solely under a theory of murder by torture, which remains a valid basis for murder liability after Senate Bill 1437. The court found that any alleged instructional error did not relate to the statutory changes and thus could not support resentencing relief under section 1172.6. View "People v. Krueger" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who, while under the influence of methamphetamine, set fire to his sister’s doorbell and started another fire in the street. He was charged with arson of an inhabited structure and had a prior strike conviction. The defendant sought mental health diversion, presenting evidence of bipolar disorder and substance abuse disorder, and a mental health professional recommended residential treatment. The court initially granted diversion on the condition that the defendant be accepted into a residential treatment program. However, due to issues with Medi-Cal coverage and facility requirements, the defendant was unable to secure placement in the recommended residential program.After it became clear that residential treatment was not available, the defendant requested to participate in an intensive outpatient program with housing at a room and board facility, but the Superior Court of Sacramento County denied this request, citing concerns about public safety and the need for residential treatment as a condition precedent for diversion. The court then set aside the grant of diversion, without prejudice to reconsideration if a suitable residential program became available. The defendant later moved for public funding for private residential treatment, but the court denied the motion, explaining it lacked authority to order such funding after Medi-Cal declined coverage.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating mental health diversion when the required residential treatment was unavailable. The appellate court also held that Penal Code section 1001.36 does not require a trial court to order public funding for private treatment when existing public programs decline coverage. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "People v. Riddle" on Justia Law

The case concerns the City of San Diego’s approval of a 2022 ballot measure to remove the longstanding 30-foot building height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area. This height restriction, established by a 1972 voter initiative, was intended to preserve coastal views, community character, and mitigate issues such as congestion and pollution. In 2018, the City updated the community plan and prepared a program environmental impact report (PEIR) under the assumption that the height limit remained in effect. In 2020, the City attempted to remove the height limit via a ballot measure, but the measure was invalidated for failing to adequately consider environmental impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Following the invalidation, the City prepared a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) and approved a second ballot measure in 2022. Save Our Access, a nonprofit, challenged this new measure, arguing that the City’s environmental review remained inadequate. The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Save Our Access’s petition for writ of mandate, finding that the City’s SEIR sufficiently addressed the environmental impacts by focusing on visual effects and neighborhood character, and by relying on the 2018 PEIR for other impact categories.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, found that the City’s SEIR was inadequate under CEQA. The court held that the City failed to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of allowing buildings above 30 feet, such as effects on noise, air quality, biological resources, and geological conditions. The court concluded that relying on the prior PEIR and deferring analysis to future site-specific projects did not satisfy CEQA’s requirements. The judgment was reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant Save Our Access’s petition and direct the City to comply with CEQA. View "Save Our Access v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) planned to conduct preconstruction geotechnical work, such as soil and groundwater testing, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh as part of preparations for the Delta tunnel project, which aims to improve water conveyance and environmental protection. Various municipal, tribal, and public interest entities objected, arguing that DWR could not begin this work until it certified that the tunnel project was consistent with the Delta Plan, as required by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009. The disputed geotechnical work included soil borings, groundwater monitoring, test trenches, and other activities intended to inform the project’s design and mitigation measures.The Superior Court of Sacramento County reviewed several related actions brought by these entities. The plaintiffs sought and obtained preliminary injunctions preventing DWR from conducting the preconstruction geotechnical work until it submitted a certification of consistency with the Delta Plan. The trial court found that the geotechnical work was an integral part of the tunnel project, which was a “covered action” under the Delta Reform Act, and concluded that DWR was required to certify consistency before initiating any part of the project, including the geotechnical work.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s orders. The appellate court held that the Delta Reform Act does not require DWR to submit a certification of consistency before engaging in preconstruction geotechnical work, distinguishing the requirements of the Delta Reform Act from those of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court found that the geotechnical work was not itself a “covered action” under the Delta Reform Act and that the Act does not incorporate CEQA’s prohibition against “piecemealing.” The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motions for preliminary injunction in light of this holding. View "Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. v. Dept. of Water Resources" on Justia Law

A criminal defendant was charged with murder and released on a $1 million bail bond posted by United States Fire Insurance Company. The trial court ordered the defendant to “return on any and all future hearing dates.” After his release, the defendant appeared personally at several hearings and later executed a Penal Code section 977 waiver, allowing his attorney to appear on his behalf at certain proceedings. On April 26, 2022, the defendant did not personally appear at a trial readiness conference, but his attorney appeared pursuant to the waiver. The court continued the hearing and ordered the defendant to be personally present at the next hearing. The defendant subsequently failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing, and the court forfeited the bail bond.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied United’s motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond, finding the motion barred by res judicata. United argued that the court lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bond because it did not do so at the defendant’s first unexcused failure to appear, claiming the section 977 waiver was ineffective for the trial readiness conference and that the court’s prior order required personal appearance. United’s subsequent appeal of the summary judgment was dismissed as untimely, but its appeal of the order denying the motion to set aside summary judgment was considered.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to set aside summary judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court was not required to forfeit the bond when the defendant appeared through counsel pursuant to a valid section 977 waiver at the trial readiness conference. The court further held that the order for the defendant to “return on any and all future hearing dates” did not require personal attendance at all hearings, and California Rules of Court, rule 4.112, did not prohibit waiver of personal presence at a trial readiness conference. Thus, the trial court retained jurisdiction to forfeit the bond at the later date. View "People v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, S.C., filed a civil action in September 2022 against Doe 1, alleging that she was sexually assaulted by her foster father while in foster care under Doe 1’s custody, care, and control, “in approximately 1981.” S.C. complied with the statutory requirement to file certificates of merit, which were approved by the Tulare County Superior Court. Later, upon receiving her juvenile case records, S.C. discovered she was not placed in foster care by Doe 1 until March 1984, and thus sought to amend her complaint to reflect that the alleged abuse occurred between 1984 and 1986.The Tulare County Superior Court denied S.C.’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, reasoning that the certificate of merit requirement under former section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not allow for amendments to the complaint or certificates of merit after filing. The court subsequently granted Doe 1’s motion for summary judgment, finding that S.C. was not in Doe 1’s custody in 1981, as alleged in the original complaint, and therefore Doe 1 could not have owed or breached any duty to S.C. at that time.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed both the summary judgment and the orders denying S.C.’s motion for leave to amend. The court held that former section 340.1 does not prohibit amendments to the complaint under section 473, subdivision (a)(1), and that the certificates of merit may be amended in accordance with the relation-back doctrine. The appellate court directed the superior court to allow S.C. to amend her complaint to allege the abuse occurred between 1984 and 1986 and to permit the filing of amended certificates of merit. Costs on appeal were awarded to S.C. View "S.C. v. Doe 1" on Justia Law

The case concerns the City of San Diego’s approval of a 2022 ballot measure to remove the longstanding 30-foot building height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area. This height restriction, established by a 1972 voter initiative, was intended to preserve coastal views, community character, and environmental quality. In 2018, the City updated the community plan for the area, assuming the height limit remained in place. In 2020, the City attempted to remove the height limit via a ballot measure, but the measure was invalidated for failing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the environmental impact report (EIR) did not analyze the effects of taller buildings.Following the invalidation of the first ballot measure, the City prepared a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) and approved a second ballot measure in 2022 to remove the height limit. Save Our Access, a nonprofit organization, challenged the City’s actions, arguing that the SEIR failed to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of allowing buildings taller than 30 feet, except for visual effects and neighborhood character. The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Save Our Access’s petition for writ of mandate, finding the City’s environmental review sufficient.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether the City complied with CEQA’s requirements to inform the public and decisionmakers of the potential environmental impacts of removing the height limit, to identify mitigation measures, and to disclose reasons for approval despite significant impacts. The appellate court held that the City’s SEIR was inadequate because it failed to analyze the full range of environmental impacts associated with taller buildings, relying improperly on the 2018 EIR. The court reversed the lower court’s judgment, ordered the petition for writ of mandate to be granted, and directed the City to comply with CEQA. View "Save Our Access v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law