Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In a joint trial involving a gang shooting, a jury convicted Daniel Ramos and Elias Ramos of: first degree murder; attempted first degree murder; and possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury also made true findings on firearm and gang enhancements. The court sentenced Daniel (the shooter) to an aggregate prison term of 92 years to life and Elias (the aider and abettor) to 84 years to life. Daniel and Elias appealed, raising over 30 issues. The Court of Appeal originally issued an opinion in late 2020, addressing all of the issues raised by defendants and affirming the judgments. The California Supreme Court subsequently granted Daniel and Elias’s petitions for review and held the matter pending its eventual decision in California v. Tirado, 12 Cal.5th 688 (2022). After Tirado issued, the matter was transferred back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider the cause in light of Tirado. As a result of the remand, and as a result of statutory amendments to Penal Code section 186.22, the appellate court found the true findings on the gang enhancement allegations as to both Daniel and Elias in counts 1, 2, and 3 had to be reversed, as well as the true finding on the firearm enhancements for Elias in counts 1 and 2, which depended on the true finding on the gang enhancements. As a result of the new enactments the following sentences and enhancements became legally impermissible,: (1) For Elias, (a) the 25-year- to-life sentence for the firearm enhancement in count 1; (b) the 20 year sentence for the firearm enhancement in count 2; (c) the four-year sentence for the gang enhancement in count 3; (d) the upper term three-year sentence on count 3; (e) a $154 fee imposed (to the extent it remained unpaid); and (2) for Daniel, (a) the 15-year- to-life sentence on count 2, which had to be reduced to a sentence of seven years to life, absent a legally permissible finding on the gang enhancement for that count; (b) the four-year sentence for the gang enhancement in count 3; (c) the upper term three-year sentence on count 3; and (d) the $154 fee imposed (to the extent it remained unpaid). The case was remanded for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgments were affirmed. View "California v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendants were arrested and convicted of murder charges after law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant, leading to the discovery of evidence connecting them to the crime. Defendants filed motions to quash and suppress, which were denied. Defendants then entered guilty and no contest pleas and then appealed their conviction based on the geofence warrant.The Second Appellate District found that, while the geofence warrant satisfied the requirements of CalECPA, it was overbroad and violated the 4th Amendment. However, the court affirmed Defendants’ convictions nonetheless, finding that the officers relied on the geofence warrant in good faith. View "P. v. Meza" on Justia Law

The plan for the 1990 robbery-burglary was for Grady to drive Adger and Oliver (age 23) to Jimenez’s house for a transaction involving cocaine valued at approximately $60,000. Adger indicated he intended to kill Jimenez if he was alone. During the robbery, Jiminez was shot and killed. In 1996, a jury convicted Oliver and Adger of first-degree murder with felony-murder special circumstances, robbery, burglary, and conspiracy to commit those crimes, finding true the three enhancements for being armed with a firearm with respect to Oliver and finding not true the three enhancements alleging Adger’s personal use of a firearm.Oliver was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. In 2019, Oliver sought resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. After the trial court determined that Oliver had made a prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing, a hearing was held and the court denied the petition. After finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Oliver was a major participant in underlying crimes who acted with reckless indifference to human life, the court concluded that he could still be convicted of first-degree murder under current law and was therefore ineligible for resentencing. The court of appeal affirmed. There was adequate consideration of Oliver’s youth and substantial evidence that he was a major participant. View "People v. Oliver" on Justia Law

The question presented for the Court of Appeal in this case was whether California could lawfully require anyone who seeks to vote in a presidential primary for a candidate of a particular political party to associate with that party as a condition of receiving a ballot with that candidate’s name on it. Plaintiffs contended that the answer was no, making Elections Code section 13102 unconstitutional. Defendants California Secretary of State and the State of California disputed this conclusion, asserting that the United States Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative on multiple occasions. Defendants pointed out, that when plaintiffs discuss a “right” to cast an expressive ballot simply for the sake of doing so, rather than to affect the outcome of an election, they have ceased talking about voting. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that elections have some “generalized expressive function.” California Court of Appeal concluded Plaintiffs’ inventive theories therefore did not supply a constitutional basis for evading binding legal precedent that foreclosed their arguments. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling sustaining the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. View "Boydston v. Padilla" on Justia Law

Jessica G. (Mother) appealed a juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her son, Robert F. Relying on subdivision (b) Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, Mother argued that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to discharge its duty of initial inquiry, because DPSS did not ask various extended family members whether Robert had any Indian ancestry. The Court of Appeal found DPSS took Robert into protective custody pursuant to a warrant, so DPSS did not take Robert into temporary custody under section 306. Accordingly, DPSS had no obligation to ask Robert’s extended family members about his potential Indian status under section 224.2(b). The Court therefore affirmed the order terminating parental rights. View "In re Robert F." on Justia Law

In May 2022, the juvenile court granted a motion to transfer defendant minor T.A. from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. T.A. argued the Court of Appeal should remand so the juvenile court could reconsider its ruling in light of recent ameliorative changes to the law enacted by Assembly Bill No. 2361 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). The State conceded that the changes applied retroactively to a minor, like T.A., whose case was not final when they took effect. Nevertheless, the State argued, no remand was necessary here because there was no reasonable probability the juvenile court would have reached a different result under the amended law. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed and therefore affirmed. View "In re T.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Oscar and Audrey Madrigal sued defendant Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) under California’s automobile lemon law. Early in the case, Hyundai made two offers to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, both of which were rejected. After a jury was sworn in, plaintiffs settled with Hyundai for a principal amount that was less than Hyundai’s second section 998 offer. The parties elected to leave the issue of costs and attorney fees for the trial court to decide upon motion. Under the settlement agreement, once the issue of costs and attorney fees was resolved and payment was made by Hyundai, plaintiffs would dismiss their complaint with prejudice. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on whether section 998’s cost-shifting penalty provisions apply when an offer to compromise is rejected and the case ends in settlement. Under the facts of this case, the Court held that it did and therefore reversed the order of the trial court. View "Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law

Appellant Madera County Department of Social Services (department) appealed from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a combined hearing for family reunification review and disposition from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3871 petition on November 15, 2021. The department contends the juvenile court erred when it ordered the department to provide additional reunification services to L.V. (mother) for her dependent children Damian L. and Jesse A. (collectively “the children”).   The Fifth Appellate District reversed the juvenile court’s order continuing mother’s reunification services. The court remanded to the juvenile court with directions to vacate its order continuing mother’s family reunification services. The court explained that the juvenile court erred in failing to consider the entire time period since the children’s initial removal when it calculated the 18-month statutory limit on reunification services. By the time the juvenile court ordered mother’s reunification services to continue in November 2021, mother had received approximately 26 months of services, which was well over the 18-month limit. View "In re Damian L." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs William Thompson and Simon Cole were professors at the University of California, Irvine, and taxpaying residents of Orange County. They filed a taxpayer lawsuit under California Code of Civil Procedure section 526a against Todd Spitzer, in his capacity as the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA), and the County of Orange (County; collectively, County defendants). Plaintiffs sought to enjoin County defendants from operating an allegedly unconstitutional DNA collection program (the OCDNA program) that authorized County prosecutors to obtain DNA samples from persons charged with misdemeanors. Specifically, County prosecutors offered to drop or reduce charges or punishments in exchange for alleged misdemeanants’ DNA, which the OCDA stored indefinitely in its own databank. Plaintiffs claimed the OCDNA program violates alleged misdemeanants’ rights to privacy, counsel, and due process and violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The trial court sustained County defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend, characterizing plaintiffs’ claims as facial challenges to the OCDNA program. It also noted that alleged misdemeanants were required to sign waivers to participate in the program, in which they waived their rights to privacy and counsel. These waivers, the court concluded, barred any facial challenges to the OCDNA program. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling. The Court of Appeal agreed the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer as to the claims based on the right to privacy, the right to counsel, and due process: these claims asserted both facial and as-applied challenges to the OCDNA program, and Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the OCDNA program, as implemented by the OCDA, was unconstitutional. The Court determined Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that including a DNA provision as part of a plea deal or negotiated dismissal was facially unconstitutional. The Court also concluded plaintiffs had taxpayer standing to bring their claims. On remand, the trial court was instructed to enter a new order overruling the demurrer as to the claims for violations of the right to privacy, the right to counsel, and due process, and sustaining it as to the remaining claims. View "Thompson v. Spitzer" on Justia Law

Sonny Kim Thai appealed a trial court’s order denying his petition for termination from the sex offender registry and ordering he could not file another petition for five years. Thai argued insufficient evidence supported the court’s order and the court abused its discretion because it failed to properly weigh all the factors. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed there was insufficient evidence and reversed the order. View "California v. Thai" on Justia Law