Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2024, Carlos Huerta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court, seeking relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA). The superior court denied the petition without appointing counsel, concluding that Huerta had failed to establish a prima facie claim for relief. Huerta then filed a petition in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, alleging racial discrimination in his charges and sentence, supported by statistical data.Previously, in 2010, Huerta was convicted of three counts of premeditated attempted murder and other felonies, with gang enhancements, and sentenced to 53 years to life plus 14 years. In 2022, he was resentenced to a determinate term of 26 years following changes in the law concerning attempted murder, retaining multiple gang enhancements. The RJA was not addressed during the resentencing.The Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause (OSC) in October 2024, appointing counsel for Huerta and directing the parties to address the legal showing required for the appointment of counsel in an RJA petition. The respondent initially argued that a prima facie showing was necessary for counsel appointment but later conceded that the McIntosh decision correctly interpreted section 1473, subdivision (e), which requires the appointment of counsel if the petition alleges facts that would establish an RJA violation.The Court of Appeal held that the superior court misapplied the statutory sequence by requiring a prima facie showing before assessing the lower pleading threshold for appointing counsel. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that Huerta's petition was facially defective as it failed to allege facts showing a qualifying offense under the RJA. The petition relied solely on gang enhancements, which do not fall within the scope of the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court of Appeal denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "In re Huerta" on Justia Law

Michael J. Kiely, an Irish resident, and MDMK Ltd., an Irish corporation, filed a lawsuit against HYPH (USA), Inc., HYPH Corporation, XHAIL, Inc., and several individual defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fraudulently induce Kiely to sell shares of a company he founded at a significant discount, subsequently transferring most of those shares to a new company, thereby depriving Kiely of any ownership interest in the new company.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion to stay or dismiss the action, determining that the case should be heard in Sweden based on a mandatory forum selection clause and traditional forum non conveniens grounds. The court found that Sweden was a suitable alternative forum and that both private and public interest factors weighed in favor of Sweden as the forum. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, contesting both grounds of the ruling.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that private and public interest factors favored Sweden as the forum. The appellate court held that the trial court properly stayed the action on the alternative independent ground of traditional forum non conveniens. Additionally, the appellate court addressed the impact of the California Supreme Court's decision in EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court on the plaintiffs' claim that the enforcement of the forum selection clause operated as an "implied waiver" of their jury trial right. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding that the enforcement of the forum selection clause did not violate California public policy regarding the right to a jury trial. View "Kiely v. Hyph (USA), Inc." on Justia Law

A plaintiff sought to build a single-family home on his residential parcel in El Dorado County, California. The county required him to pay a $23,420 traffic impact mitigation (TIM) fee as a condition for obtaining a building permit. The plaintiff paid the fee under protest and subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the fee as an unlawful taking of property under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.The Superior Court of El Dorado County dismissed the plaintiff’s federal takings claim without leave to amend and denied his petition for a writ of mandate. The plaintiff appealed, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, relying on established California law that the Nollan/Dolan test did not apply to legislatively imposed impact fees. The California Supreme Court denied review.The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the Nollan/Dolan test applies to both legislative and administrative land-use exactions. The Supreme Court vacated the California Court of Appeal’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.On remand, the California Court of Appeal applied the Nollan/Dolan test to the TIM fee. The court concluded that the fee had an essential nexus to the county’s legitimate interest in reducing traffic congestion from new development. Additionally, the court found that the fee was roughly proportional to the traffic impacts attributable to the plaintiff’s proposed development. The court held that the TIM fee did not constitute an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment and affirmed the judgment. View "Sheetz v. County of El Dorado" on Justia Law

Defendant Sergio Munguia Torres was found guilty of first-degree murder in the killing of his wife, Sonia Suarez. The evidence showed that Torres waited in his vehicle until Suarez drove by, followed her, ran her off the road, and shot her when she tried to drive off. He then fled the scene. The jury also found true the allegation that Torres personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. Torres was sentenced to 25 years to life for murder, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, totaling 50 years to life.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County reviewed the case. The prosecution filed a sentencing brief requesting the court to deny probation and not dismiss the firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 1385. Torres did not file a sentencing brief. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court acknowledged its discretion to strike the enhancement but noted the victim's vulnerability and the planning involved in the crime. The court concluded it would not dismiss the firearm enhancement and imposed the maximum sentence.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. Torres contended that the trial court erred in failing to strike the firearm enhancement under section 1385 based on the mitigating circumstance that the enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. The appellate court disagreed, interpreting the statute to mean that the enhancement itself must result in a sentence exceeding 20 years. Since Torres's sentence already exceeded 20 years without the enhancement, the court found that section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(C) did not apply. The judgment was affirmed. View "P. v. Torres" on Justia Law

GreenPower Motor Company Inc. (GreenPower) and San Joaquin Valley Equipment Leasing, Inc. (San Joaquin Leasing) were involved in the California Hybrid and Zero-Emissions Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), which subsidizes the price of qualifying electric vehicles (EVs). GreenPower's participation in the HVIP program was suspended following an investigation by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) into their compliance with HVIP requirements. Subsequently, the Attorney General's Office began investigating potential violations of the HVIP program and issued subpoenas to GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing for documents related to their compliance with HVIP.GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing filed a petition for writ of mandate in Sacramento County Superior Court to compel CARB to issue vouchers for their EVs. Meanwhile, the Attorney General issued subpoenas as part of a separate investigation. When GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing did not comply, the Attorney General filed a petition in the City and County of San Francisco Superior Court to enforce the subpoenas. The trial court ordered GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing to show cause for their non-compliance and eventually required them to produce the requested documents.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas and that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction did not apply because the issues in the Sacramento action and the present proceeding were factually and legally distinct. The court also found that the subpoenas were valid, specific, and relevant to the Attorney General's investigation into potential violations of the HVIP program and the California False Claims Act. The order requiring compliance with the subpoenas was affirmed. View "People ex rel. Bonta v. Greenpower Motor Co." on Justia Law

On May 6, 2022, Royce Gresham drove his car into the bedroom wall of his neighbors, Alix and Jose S. After the crash, Gresham got into a fight with their son, Anthony, who accused him of endangering his parents. When sheriff's deputies arrived, Gresham resisted arrest, leading to a struggle during which he appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine and alcohol. Gresham claimed he did not know the deputies were police officers due to his confusion from a head injury and his schizoaffective disorder.The Los Angeles County Superior Court charged Gresham with assault with a deadly weapon, misdemeanor vandalism, misdemeanor resisting arrest, and hit and run. The jury convicted him of resisting arrest but acquitted him of the other charges. Gresham filed a Pitchess motion for information on complaints against the deputies, which the court denied.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. Gresham argued that his conviction for resisting arrest required proof that he actually knew he was resisting a peace officer. The court disagreed, holding that the statute requires only that the defendant "knew or reasonably should have known" the person was a peace officer. The court found substantial evidence supporting the conviction, noting the deputies' marked car, uniforms, and body camera footage. The court also upheld the denial of the Pitchess motion, citing the video evidence that captured the incident and showed no excessive force or false reporting by the deputies. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Gresham" on Justia Law

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 57, which amended the California Constitution to allow the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) to award credits for good behavior and rehabilitative or educational achievements. The department adopted regulations to award credits beyond statutory limits and to use credits to advance indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and several family members of crime victims challenged these regulations through a petition for writ of mandate.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied the writ in part and granted it in part, invalidating the department’s regulations to the extent they allowed the use of credits to advance an indeterminately-sentenced inmate’s minimum eligible parole date. Both the department and the petitioners appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Proposition 57 properly removed statutory restraints on the department’s authority to award credits, allowing the regulations to supersede contrary statutes. However, the court also held that the department may use credits to advance indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates only if permitted by existing law, as Proposition 57 is silent on this issue. The court remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to modify the writ of mandate and enter a modified judgment. View "Criminal Justice Legal Foundation v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

R.K. (Father) appeals an order granting sole physical custody of his daughter to G.K. (Mother). Previously, Father had sole physical custody. He argues he was denied due process because he was not given advance notice of the proposed custody change and the trial court ordered a move-away of the child without an evidentiary hearing. Additionally, Father contends the trial court did not consider the separation of the daughter from her three siblings. However, Father did not raise these issues in the trial court and provided an inadequate record for the appeal.The trial court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing and made detailed factual findings about Father's uncooperative and disrespectful behavior towards Mother, the court, and court procedures. The court found that a significant change in circumstances indicated it was in the daughter's best interest for Mother to have sole physical custody. Consequently, the trial court granted Mother sole physical custody and ordered that the parties continue to share joint legal custody.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court noted that Father failed to object to the trial court's tentative decision and did not preserve his due process claim. The appellate court found that Father was not denied due process as he had notice that physical custody was at issue and had the opportunity to oppose the request during the evidentiary hearing. The court also rejected Father's claim regarding the separation of the daughter from her siblings, noting that two of the three children were stepsiblings, not biological siblings, and compelling circumstances were not required to justify their separation.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting Mother sole physical custody of the daughter. View "In re Marriage of R.K. & G.K." on Justia Law

X.K. sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her former husband, M.C., under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). She alleged a history of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by M.C., including incidents where he slapped her, pulled her away from a car, and forced her to have sex. She also claimed M.C. engaged in coercive control, such as restricting her movements and financial resources. X.K. requested sole custody of their daughter, J.K.C., and no visitation for M.C.The Sonoma County Superior Court denied X.K.'s ex parte request for a temporary restraining order, stating the events described were not recent and did not provide sufficient reason to restrain M.C.'s conduct. At the evidentiary hearing, X.K. represented herself, while M.C. had legal counsel. The court focused on the custody and visitation disputes between the parents and denied the DVRO request, reasoning that these issues did not fall under the definition of domestic violence.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in its understanding of the definition of "abuse" under the DVPA and improperly denied the DVRO because the allegations occurred in the context of a custody dispute. The appellate court noted that X.K.'s evidence, if credited, could constitute physical and sexual abuse and conduct disturbing her peace. The court emphasized that the trial court should have considered the totality of the circumstances, including incidents in China, when assessing whether M.C.'s conduct in California constituted abuse.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for a new hearing to properly evaluate the evidence and apply the correct legal standards under the DVPA. View "X.K. v. M.C." on Justia Law

An attorney, Morris S. Getzels, challenged the constitutional validity of State Bar Rule 2.30, which prevents inactive licensees from acting as private arbitrators and mediators. Getzels argued that this rule violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and California Constitutions by treating inactive licensees differently from others. He claimed that the rule impinges on the fundamental liberty of "freedom of contract" and that there is no rational basis for the rule.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the State Bar's demurrer without leave to amend, leading to a judgment of dismissal. The court found that rational basis review was the appropriate standard for evaluating Getzels's equal protection claim. It concluded that funding the State Bar’s regulatory functions was a legitimate government purpose and that requiring licensees to pay the active membership fee was related to this purpose. The court determined that the State Bar had sufficiently articulated a rational basis for the disparate treatment of inactive licensees.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that rational basis review was the correct standard, as the rule did not involve a suspect class or a fundamental right. The court found that the State Bar had a legitimate interest in maintaining a competent bar and ensuring the professional conduct of its licensees. It concluded that Rule 2.30’s distinction between active and inactive licensees was rationally related to this goal, as inactive licensees acting as private arbitrators and mediators could burden the State Bar’s regulatory system. The court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, upholding the constitutionality of Rule 2.30. View "Getzels v. The State Bar of California" on Justia Law