Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Nicholas Beaudreaux, serving a 50-year-to-life sentence for the first-degree murder and attempted robbery of Wayne Drummond, twice petitioned unsuccessfully for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. In the resentencing proceedings on his second petition, the trial court ruled that the order denying relief on his first petition, an order affirmed in 2020, foreclosed relief. Beaudreaux appealed again, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lewis and Senate Bill No. 775, which clarified the procedural law governing section 1172.6 resentencing proceedings.Previously, Beaudreaux and a co-defendant, Brandon Crowder, were charged with the same two counts: murdering Drummond and attempting to rob Drummond. However, only Beaudreaux was charged with personally and intentionally discharging a firearm, causing great bodily injury and death to Drummond. A jury trial followed, and Crowder changed his plea from not guilty to no contest to the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The jury found Beaudreaux guilty of first-degree murder and attempted robbery of Drummond, and found the sentencing enhancement allegations against him to be true.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District, the court agreed with Beaudreaux that the trial court erred at the prima facie stage of these resentencing proceedings by once again failing to appoint counsel, and by relying on substantive facts summarized in this court’s 2011 opinion affirming his conviction. However, the court concluded that these errors were harmless. The dispositive question was whether, based on the record of conviction, Beaudreaux was convicted as Drummond’s actual killer. The court concluded that the record was sufficient to refute conclusively Beaudreaux’s attempt to allege entitlement to section 1172.6 relief. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "P. v. Beaudreaux" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Arno Kuigoua, a registered nurse who was employed by the California Department of Veterans Affairs (the Department) at the Knight Veterans Home. Kuigoua was terminated in October 2018 after the Department found him guilty of sexually harassing women and providing substandard care that harmed patients. Kuigoua appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board, but his appeal was rejected. He then filed an administrative charge of employment discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination based on sex and retaliation.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed Kuigoua's case after he sued the Department in state court on state statutory claims. His complaint included allegations of unlawful gender, sex, and/or sexual orientation discrimination and harassment, unlawful race, color, and/or national origin discrimination and/or harassment, failure to prevent unlawful discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, and/or national origin, and retaliation based on gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, and/or national origin.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight reviewed the case after Kuigoua appealed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court found that Kuigoua's claims in court were not like, and were not reasonably related to, those in his administrative complaint. The court also found that an administrative investigation would not have uncovered the conduct that was the focus of Kuigoua's operative complaint. As a result, the court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, ruling that Kuigoua failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. View "Kuigoua v. Dept. of Veteran Affairs" on Justia Law

In 2016, Shawn Vincent Gray was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) for one count of stalking and two counts of making criminal threats. He also admitted to a prior strike allegation and six one-year prior prison commitment allegations. As part of his plea agreement, Gray acknowledged that an NGI verdict would mean that he would be committed to the Department of Mental Health for a maximum term of 19 years and four months. In 2023, Gray filed a petition to recall his maximum commitment time and strike the legally invalid enhancement, citing Senate Bill No. 483 (SB 483) and Penal Code section 1172.75. The Kern County Superior Court granted the petition, recalculating Gray's maximum commitment term to 13 years and four months.The People appealed the superior court's decision, arguing that the court erred by recalculating Gray's maximum term of commitment. They claimed that the legislative changes that eliminated most section 667.5(b) sentencing enhancements did not retroactively apply to Gray's 2016 maximum term of commitment and that because Gray continued to be a threat to public safety, any reduced commitment recalculation was erroneous.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District found that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and consider Gray's petition in the first instance and its subsequent orders were void. The court concluded that the People's appeal was statutorily authorized and that it had appellate jurisdiction. However, it also found that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and consider Gray's petition in the first instance and its subsequent orders were void. The court reversed and vacated the superior court's orders recalling the 2016 judgment and recalculating Gray's maximum term of commitment. The court ordered the superior court to instead enter a new and different order denying Gray's petition in its entirety. View "P. v. Gray" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Israel Marcial Uriostegui, who was convicted of first-degree residential burglary by a jury. Uriostegui appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his objection under section 231.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section aims to prevent the improper removal of jurors based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, gender, or membership in another protected group. Uriostegui's objection was based on the prosecutor's peremptory challenge against a prospective juror, T.N., who appeared to be Hispanic.Previously, the trial court had asked T.N. for basic information during voir dire. T.N. disclosed her employment at Taco Bell, her current unemployment due to an injury, and her lack of prior jury service. She also revealed that two of her family members had been convicted of a crime, but she was not close to them. When the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against T.N., Uriostegui's counsel objected, arguing that the basis for excusing T.N. was presumptively invalid under section 231.7. The prosecutor justified the challenge by citing T.N.'s "lack of life experience," her unemployment, and her demeanor. The trial court denied Uriostegui's objection, finding no substantial likelihood that T.N.'s perceived membership in a protected class was a factor in the peremptory challenge.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District, Uriostegui contended that the trial court erred in denying his objection under section 231.7. The court agreed with Uriostegui, stating that the prosecutor's reasons for excusing T.N. were presumptively invalid under section 231.7. The court found that the prosecutor's reasons and the trial court's findings did not overcome the presumption of invalidity. The court concluded that the trial court erred in denying Uriostegui's objection under section 231.7. As a result, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. View "People v. Uriostegui" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a married couple, identified as Br. C. and Be. C., who have three-year-old twins. The dispute centers around a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) that Br. C. obtained against Be. C. The DVRO was granted after several incidents of verbal and physical abuse, including Be. C. yelling at Br. C., throwing objects, and using derogatory language. The court also admitted into evidence three audio recordings of Be. C.'s abusive behavior, which Br. C. had made prior to filing for the DVRO.The Superior Court of Placer County granted the DVRO, which protects Br. C., their two children, and their two dogs from Be. C. for a three-year period. Be. C. appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the three recordings into evidence and that substantial evidence does not support the DVRO.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District reviewed the case. Be. C. challenged the admissibility of the three audio recordings, arguing that he did not know he was being recorded at the time. The court found that the recordings were admissible under section 633.6, subdivision (b) of the Penal Code, which allows a victim of domestic violence to record a confidential communication if they reasonably believe it may contain evidence relevant to a restraining order. The court also found that substantial evidence of domestic violence supported the trial court's ruling. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the Superior Court of Placer County, upholding the DVRO against Be. C. View "Br. C. v. Be. C." on Justia Law

The case involves Jameal M. Mosley, who was charged with unauthorized possession and transportation of a machine gun, being a felon in possession of a firearm for the benefit of a street gang, and being a felon in possession of ammunition. These charges stemmed from warrantless searches of Mosley's car and person, which yielded a loaded magazine and a Glock handgun with an automatic switch. Mosley filed a motion to suppress the magazine and handgun, arguing that the searches were unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion.The trial court held a suppression hearing. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department had received a call about a group of men creating a music video in a parking lot, with one of them holding a handgun. The officers arrived at the scene and detained all members of the group, including Mosley. They found a firearm on one of the men, D.M., and another firearm in D.M.'s car. Mosley was detained for approximately 41 minutes before his car was searched, revealing a loaded magazine. A subsequent search of Mosley's person revealed a Glock handgun with a switch. The trial court denied Mosley's motion to suppress, finding that the officers had probable cause to search Mosley's car and that the detention was not prolonged.Mosley filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District. The appellate court agreed with Mosley's argument that the trial court erred in finding the warrantless searches were supported by probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the officers lacked probable cause to search Mosley's car and that the detention was unlawfully prolonged. The court granted Mosley's petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying Mosley's motion to suppress and enter a new order granting the motion. View "Mosley v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves a request for calendar entries of the Governor's former senior advisor for energy, Alice Reynolds, under the California Public Records Act (PRA). The request was made by the Energy and Policy Institute (EPI) and sought entries reflecting meetings with 10 specified entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), electric utilities, and unions representing energy workers, during the year prior to Reynolds' appointment to the presidency of the CPUC. The Governor's office denied the request, citing the deliberative process privilege, which protects the decision-making process of government agencies from public scrutiny.The trial court ruled in favor of EPI, finding that the public interest in access to these calendar entries outweighed the deliberative process privilege. The Governor appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, concluding that EPI's request was sufficiently specific, focused, and limited, and the public interest in disclosure was sufficiently compelling when measured against the minimal impact on government decision-making, to override the deliberative process privilege. The court found that the entities specified in EPI's request were entities with which the Governor's senior energy advisor would be expected to meet regardless of the Governor's particular policy priorities. Therefore, disclosure of records that those meetings took place, without any information as to the substance of those meetings, would reveal little if anything about the Governor's or his senior advisor's policy positions or thought processes. The court also concluded that the public has a substantial interest in knowing the extent to which the current CPUC president interacted with the CPUC and the entities the CPUC regulates when she was the Governor's senior advisor for energy. View "State v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves Clifford Alan Dilbert, who filed petitions for clemency and/or commutation of his prison sentence with the Governor's office in 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Dilbert claimed that he had not received any communication from the Governor's office regarding the processing of his clemency petition. He sought a writ of mandate to compel Governor Gavin Newsom to process his applications and reapplications for clemency/commutation, render a decision on those applications, and notify him of the decision in a timely manner.The Superior Court of Sacramento County sustained the Governor’s demurrer to the petition without leave to amend. The court concluded that Dilbert does not have a due process right to have his applications processed within a particular time frame and the law imposes no duty to process clemency applications within a particular time frame. Dilbert appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court found that neither the California Constitution nor any provision of Penal Code sections 4800 to 4813 contains an express requirement that the Governor process clemency applications within a specified time frame. The court also rejected Dilbert's argument that the application instructions created an obligation for the Governor to grant discretionary clemency within a certain amount of time. The court concluded that Dilbert does not have a due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution to have his application processed within a certain time frame. View "Dilbert v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The case involves Francisco Carrillo, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, who was convicted of assault with a firearm in 2002 and sentenced to 301 days in jail. In 2007, Carrillo admitted to a probation violation and was sentenced to an additional 90 days in jail. The combined jail time exceeded one year, making his conviction an aggravated felony under immigration law and subjecting him to mandatory deportation.In 2022, Carrillo filed a motion to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7, arguing that he did not meaningfully understand the potential immigration consequences of his conviction and sentence. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Carrillo had not demonstrated that his lack of understanding prejudiced his decision to go to trial or his defense strategy.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that Carrillo had not shown a reasonable probability that he would have done something differently, such as pursuing an immigration-safe plea or presenting different arguments at sentencing, had he understood the immigration consequences. However, the court modified the trial court's order to allow Carrillo to file a new motion addressing grounds not raised in his original motion. View "People v. Carrillo" on Justia Law

In this case, Vince Fong, a candidate for the California State Assembly District 32 and Congressional District 20, filed nomination papers for both offices for the March 5, 2024, primary election. The Secretary of State refused to accept his nomination papers for the 20th Congressional District, citing section 8003, subdivision (b) of the Elections Code, which states that no person may file nomination papers for more than one office at the same election. Fong sought a writ of mandate ordering the Secretary to accept his papers and include his name on the certified list of candidates for the 20th Congressional District.The Superior Court of Sacramento County granted Fong’s request, holding that section 8003, subdivision (b) only applied to the independent nomination of candidates, and because Fong was not seeking to utilize the independent nomination process, the statute did not apply to him. The Secretary of State appealed this decision, arguing that section 8003, subdivision (b) should be interpreted as a general prohibition against running for more than one office at the same election.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District agreed with the superior court and concluded that section 8003, subdivision (b) only applies to the independent nomination process and therefore has no application to the facts before them. The court held that the Secretary of State's interpretation of the statute, which would have broadly applied the prohibition to all candidates, ignored the context of the statute as a whole. The court denied the Secretary's petition for a writ of mandate. View "Weber v. Superior Court" on Justia Law