Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A defendant was charged with multiple sexual offenses, including forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, unlawful sexual intercourse, and incest, all involving a 17-year-old relative. The alleged incident occurred when the defendant stayed overnight at the victim’s home, entered her bedroom, and engaged in sexual acts. The victim testified about the charged offenses and two prior uncharged incidents. The prosecution presented evidence including pretext phone calls, expert testimony on child sexual abuse victim psychology, and testimony from an investigating officer. The defendant denied all wrongdoing and challenged the credibility and admissibility of certain evidence.The case was tried in the Monterey County Superior Court, where the jury convicted the defendant on all counts. The trial court granted the prosecution’s request to modify the pattern jury instructions regarding the definition of “force” for the forcible rape and oral copulation charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient for some counts, that the modified jury instructions were erroneous, and that certain evidence and expert testimony were improperly admitted. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to specific evidence and testimony.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in modifying the jury instructions to define “force” as including any physical movement or positioning of the victim’s body, which was misleading and prejudicial. As a result, the convictions for forcible rape and forcible oral copulation were reversed and remanded for possible retrial. The court found that other asserted errors were harmless and affirmed the convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse and incest. The court ordered retrial and resentencing on the reversed counts. View "People v. Melgoza" on Justia Law

The case concerns a violent incident in which Daniel Orozco, along with three associates, entered rival gang territory in Los Angeles. During two separate drive-by shootings on the same night, one man was wounded and another, who was not a gang member, was killed. Orozco owned the car used in the shootings, and evidence—including video footage, ballistic matches, and phone location data—linked him and his group to the crimes. Police apprehended the group shortly after the shootings, recovering the firearm and related evidence at the scene.At the preliminary hearing in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, a confession by the shooter, Martinez Garibo, was suppressed due to a Miranda violation. Despite this, the magistrate found sufficient evidence to hold Orozco to answer for murder and attempted murder, but not for conspiracy. On the first day of trial, the prosecution was permitted to amend the information to add a conspiracy to commit murder charge, over Orozco’s objection. At trial, Orozco’s defense introduced the previously suppressed confession to support an intoxication defense. The jury convicted Orozco on all counts, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms for murder and attempted murder, with a stayed sentence for conspiracy.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It held that the addition of the conspiracy charge was improper because the evidence at the preliminary hearing, absent the suppressed confession, did not support such a charge, thus violating Orozco’s right to notice. The court reversed the conspiracy conviction but affirmed the murder and attempted murder convictions, finding no merit in Orozco’s other arguments, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "People v. Orozco" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by a staffing company and assigned to work at a warehousing and logistics firm, performing duties as a materials handler and forklift operator. He filed a class action and a separate representative action alleging various wage and hour violations, including claims for unpaid minimum wages, waiting time penalties, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The two cases were consolidated. The plaintiff and his direct employer had entered into an arbitration agreement, which referenced the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules but did not explicitly state that the arbitrator would decide issues of arbitrability.The defendants moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims, dismiss class allegations, and stay judicial proceedings. They argued that the arbitration agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that the AAA rules incorporated into the agreement delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. The plaintiff opposed, asserting exemption from the FAA as a transportation worker and arguing that certain claims, including those under PAGA and for unpaid wages, were not arbitrable under California law. The trial court found the FAA did not apply, applied California law, and held that the agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court compelled arbitration of some claims but allowed others, including minimum wage and PAGA claims, to proceed in court.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that, in the context of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement, mere incorporation of AAA rules without explicit language in the agreement is not clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court also held that claims for waiting time penalties based on minimum wage violations and all PAGA claims were not arbitrable under California law when the FAA does not apply. View "Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc." on Justia Law

Richard Quntan Garcia was convicted by a jury of several offenses, including attempted second degree robbery, second degree robbery, evading an officer, carjacking, misdemeanor resisting a peace officer, and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. The incidents occurred over several days in November 2021 in Paso Robles, California, involving Garcia brandishing a firearm during robberies, fleeing police in a BMW, and later carjacking a vehicle. Physical evidence and witness identifications linked Garcia to the crimes. He was sentenced as a third strike offender to 118 years to life in state prison.Prior to this appeal, the case was tried in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County. During jury selection, the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to remove a juror perceived to be of mixed race, prompting defense counsel to object under California Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, which prohibits peremptory challenges based on race or other protected characteristics. The trial court overruled the objection, finding no prima facie case of bias and accepting the prosecutor’s stated reasons related to the juror’s lack of life experience and timid demeanor. The court also denied Garcia’s motion to sever the carjacking count from the other charges, finding the offenses sufficiently connected.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed Garcia’s appeal. The court held that the trial court did not err in overruling the section 231.7 objection, concluding that the prosecutor’s reasons were supported by the record and not presumptively invalid under the statute. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to sever. The judgment was affirmed except for an amendment to the abstract of judgment to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement regarding fines and fees. View "P. v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Dewayne Keith Parker faced criminal charges in both Fresno and Napa counties, including murder, burglary, and assault. He was found incompetent to stand trial in Fresno County and admitted to Napa State Hospital. While hospitalized, Parker allegedly assaulted another patient, leading to new charges in Napa County. The Napa County Superior Court found him incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the Department of State Hospitals. After Parker was restored to competency, he was discharged to Fresno County due to his primary commitment there. More than a year later, after being arrested on a Napa County bench warrant, Parker was returned to Napa County, where the court again found him incompetent to stand trial.The Napa County Superior Court held a restoration hearing and, relying on equitable tolling, paused the two-year maximum commitment period for Parker’s Napa County charges during the time he was involved in proceedings in Fresno County. Parker argued that this tolling was unauthorized by statute and violated his due process and equal protection rights. The court rejected these arguments, denied his request for release or conservatorship, and set a new commitment expiration date based on the tolled period.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that, although the statutory scheme for competency commitments does not expressly address tolling, courts have inherent equitable powers to pause the running of the commitment period when a defendant is unavailable due to proceedings in another jurisdiction. The court found that the delay caused by Parker’s simultaneous proceedings in Fresno County constituted good cause for tolling. The appellate court affirmed the Napa County Superior Court’s order, concluding that the tolling did not violate Parker’s constitutional rights. View "People v. Parker" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff was subject to a default judgment in 2006 for an unpaid credit card debt after a process server claimed to have effected substitute service at a Hayward, California address. The plaintiff asserted he was never served, did not reside at the address where service was attempted, and only learned of the judgment in December 2022. The debt was later assigned to a new creditor, who sought to renew and enforce the judgment, which had grown substantially with interest. After the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment for lack of service was denied, he filed a new action seeking equitable relief to set aside the judgment and alleging violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.The Superior Court of Alameda County granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions, striking the complaint and dismissing it with prejudice. The court found the plaintiff’s uncorroborated declaration insufficient to rebut the presumption of valid service and concluded he had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on his equitable or statutory claims. The court also determined that, because the plaintiff admitted to owing the debt, he could not establish a meritorious defense to the underlying action.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by weighing the credibility of the plaintiff’s declaration at the anti-SLAPP stage, rather than accepting it as true for purposes of determining minimal merit. The appellate court further held that, where a challenge to a default judgment is based on lack of service, due process does not require the plaintiff to show a meritorious defense to set aside the judgment. The court also found that the plaintiff’s statutory claim under the Rosenthal Act was not contingent on prevailing on his equitable claims. The judgment was reversed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff. View "Ahmed v. Collect Access, LLC" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to the validity of Measure C, a citizens’ initiative placed on the ballot by the City of San Diego for the March 2020 election. Measure C proposed an increase in the city’s transient occupancy tax, with revenues earmarked for homelessness programs, street repairs, and convention center improvements. The measure also authorized the City to issue bonds repaid from the new tax revenues. Measure C received 65.24 percent of the vote, and the city council subsequently passed resolutions declaring the measure approved and authorizing the issuance of related bonds.After the election, Alliance San Diego and other plaintiffs filed actions challenging the City’s resolution declaring Measure C had passed, arguing it was invalid. The City responded with a validation complaint seeking judicial confirmation of the validity of Measure C and the related bond resolutions. California Taxpayers Action Network (CTAN) and other opponents answered, contending that Measure C required a two-thirds vote and was not a bona fide citizens’ initiative. The Superior Court of San Diego County initially granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that a two-thirds vote was required, and entered judgment against the City. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Measure C was a bona fide citizens’ initiative.On remand, the trial court conducted a bench trial and rejected CTAN’s arguments, finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction, the case was ripe, the special fund doctrine exempted the bonds from the two-thirds vote requirement, and Measure C was a bona fide citizens’ initiative requiring only a simple majority vote. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Measure C and the related bond resolutions were valid, and that the trial court properly excluded certain hearsay evidence. View "Alliance San Diego v. California Taxpayers Action Network" on Justia Law

A man was charged in 2002 with multiple sexual offenses involving three minor males. In 2003, he entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to several counts of committing lewd acts on children aged 14 or 15 and one count of oral copulation with a victim under 16, which was amended from a charge of forcible oral copulation to a nonforcible offense. He did not admit to using force or violence in his plea, but the factual basis for the plea referenced police reports describing acts involving force. He was sentenced to state prison in accordance with the plea agreement.In 2005, two psychologists evaluated him for commitment as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) under California Penal Code section 2962. A chief forensic psychiatrist certified that he met the criteria, including having committed a crime involving force or violence, based on documentary evidence such as probation and police reports. The Board of Parole Hearings affirmed the certification. He did not challenge the certification in superior court at that time. He remained in custody under annual recommitment petitions, and his only prior challenge was an unsuccessful appeal of a 2022 recommitment order.After that, he filed a habeas corpus petition in Fresno County Superior Court in 2023, arguing that his conviction did not qualify as an MDO offense and that reliance on hearsay in the probation report violated his constitutional rights. The superior court denied the petition, finding the probation report admissible and sufficient to establish use of force.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that a habeas corpus petition is a proper vehicle to challenge an initial MDO certification based on static factors, even years later. The court found that the evidence was sufficient under the law at the time of certification, and that subsequent changes in evidentiary standards were not retroactive. The court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied. View "In re Grinder" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former employee, brought a lawsuit against his employer alleging multiple claims of discrimination and harassment. The employer successfully moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the parties. During the arbitration, the arbitration provider issued an invoice for fees, which the employer attempted to pay electronically on the last day of the statutory 30-day deadline. However, due to a processing delay, the payment was not received by the provider until three days after the deadline.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found that the employer’s failure to ensure the arbitration fees were received within the 30-day period constituted a material breach of the arbitration agreement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. The court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration, returned the case to court, and awarded the plaintiff $1,750 in sanctions for expenses incurred in bringing the motion. The plaintiff then sought over $300,000 in attorney fees and costs under section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1), which allows recovery of all fees and costs associated with an abandoned arbitration. The trial court granted only a reduced amount, reasoning that the plaintiff was entitled only to fees and costs for work rendered useless by the termination of arbitration.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, considered the impact of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310. Hohenshelt held that federal law preempts a strict application of section 1281.98, and that forfeiture of arbitral rights occurs only if the failure to pay fees is willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent. The appellate court determined that the employer’s late payment was not willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1). The order awarding attorney fees and costs was reversed. View "Wilson v. Tap Worldwide, LLC" on Justia Law

In December 2007, the defendant participated in a gang-related shooting in which he, along with two other gang members, drove into rival territory. The defendant, seated in the back of the car, rolled down his window, confronted a rival gang member, exited the vehicle, and fired multiple shots, injuring the victim but not fatally. After the incident, the driver, an uninvolved high school student, reported the shooting to authorities. The defendant later admitted to being the shooter.The Orange County District Attorney charged the defendant and his codefendants with attempted murder, street terrorism, and related enhancements. In 2011, the defendant pleaded guilty and received a negotiated 19-year sentence. One codefendant went to trial and was convicted by a jury of the same charges and enhancements. In 2022, the defendant filed a petition under Penal Code section 1172.6 to vacate his attempted murder conviction and be resentenced, arguing that changes in the law regarding accomplice liability applied to his case. At the evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court of Orange County admitted transcripts from the codefendant’s trial over the defendant’s objection and denied the petition, finding the defendant was the actual shooter and thus ineligible for relief.On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting evidence from a trial in which he was not a party. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that Penal Code section 1172.6(d)(3) allows the admission of evidence from any prior hearing or trial, so long as it is admissible under current law, regardless of whether the petitioner was a party to that proceeding. The court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the petition. View "P. v. Ramos" on Justia Law