Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 1982, Jose Gelito Rodriguez and three others were involved in two separate shooting incidents on Hollywood Boulevard, resulting in the injury of Don Hill and the death of Kirk Bickford. Rodriguez was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and murder. In 1984, he pled guilty to second-degree murder, and the firearm enhancements were dismissed. The plea agreement was influenced by the lack of witnesses to identify Rodriguez as the shooter and his intoxication at the time, which could have reduced the charge to involuntary manslaughter. Rodriguez was sentenced to 15 years to life.Rodriguez later sought resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that he was not the actual shooter and that his intoxication could negate malice. The trial court appointed counsel and found a prima facie case for relief, leading to an evidentiary hearing. The People sought to admit Rodriguez’s statements from a 2011 letter to the Board of Parole Hearings and a 2016 Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Rodriguez objected, claiming the statements were coerced and unreliable hearsay.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County admitted the statements, finding them voluntary and reliable. At the evidentiary hearing, the court reviewed the evidence, including the probation report and testimony from Dr. Jill Hobel, who conducted the 2016 assessment. The court concluded that Rodriguez was the actual killer and denied his petition for resentencing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the resentencing procedure under section 1172.6 is a postconviction process and not a criminal trial, thus not implicating the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court found no error in admitting Rodriguez’s statements from the parole proceedings, as they were not compelled or involuntary. View "People v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Francisco Munoz Virgen and two codefendants were charged with murder and assault with a semiautomatic firearm. In the first trial, the jury could not reach a verdict on the charges, leading to a mistrial. Virgen and one codefendant were retried, while the other codefendant entered a plea agreement and testified for the prosecution. The second trial included testimony suggesting an uncharged conspiracy to assault the victim, during which the victim was shot and killed. The court instructed the jury on aiding and abetting and conspiracy principles, including the final paragraph of CALCRIM No. 400 and CALCRIM No. 416, which allowed for conviction of crimes occurring during the commission of the intended crime. The jury found Virgen guilty of second-degree murder but could not reach a verdict on the assault charge or the firearm enhancement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County declared a mistrial on the assault charge and interpreted the deadlock on the firearm allegation as a not true finding. Virgen was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. On appeal, Virgen argued that the court's instructions allowed the jury to convict him of murder without finding he acted with malice and that the court should have instructed on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. The People conceded that the court miscalculated Virgen's presentence custody credits.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, agreed with Virgen's contention that the jury could have convicted him of murder without finding malice aforethought due to the instructions given. The court concluded that the instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversed Virgen's murder conviction, remanding the case for a retrial on that count. View "People v. Virgen" on Justia Law

Emiliano Gomez was found guilty by the trial court of multiple offenses, including stalking, criminal threats, and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a felon. The police found a flare gun in Gomez's possession, and based on an officer's testimony, the trial court convicted him of possessing a firearm as a felon under Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). Gomez appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm as a felon and that the statutes prohibiting felons from possessing firearms and ammunition violate the Second Amendment.The trial court found Gomez guilty on all counts except for possession of body armor. The court also found special allegations and aggravating factors true, sentencing Gomez to an aggregate term of four years in state prison. Gomez contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove the flare gun was a firearm designed to be used as a weapon, as required by section 16520, subdivision (a).The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that the prosecution needed to prove the flare gun was designed to be used as a weapon. The court found the evidence insufficient to support such a finding and vacated the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. The court also rejected Gomez's Second Amendment challenge to the statutory prohibitions on possession of firearms and ammunition by felons, citing the reasoning in People v. Anderson. The judgment was reversed, the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing. View "People v. Gomez" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, a tenured professor at a community college, filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and related claims against the Los Angeles Community College District and a vice president of student services. The alleged harassment occurred over an eight-month period in 2017, during which the vice president made inappropriate comments and advances towards the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed retaliation when she did not comply with his demands, including attempts to move her program and firing her staff.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over the trial, where a jury awarded the plaintiff $10 million in noneconomic damages. The defendants filed motions for a new trial and partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence and excessive damages. These motions were denied by the trial judge, who made inappropriate and irrelevant comments during the post-trial hearing, leading to his disqualification for cause.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and found significant errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings. The appellate court determined that the admission of 20-year-old newspaper articles and evidence of the vice president's misdemeanor convictions were prejudicial and irrelevant. Additionally, the testimony of a student who had filed a separate harassment complaint against a different administrator was improperly admitted, as it was not closely related to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case.The appellate court concluded that these errors, combined with the excessive damages awarded, warranted a new trial. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The defendants were awarded costs on appeal. View "Odom v. L.A. Community College Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Christian L. Johnson sued his employer, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), for claims related to his employment. During the litigation, Paul Brown, an attorney for Caltrans, sent an email to Johnson’s supervisor, Nicolas Duncan, which Duncan then shared with Johnson. Johnson and his attorney, John Shepardson, further disseminated the email to several experts and individuals. Caltrans claimed the email was protected by attorney-client privilege and sought a protective order, which the trial court granted. Subsequently, Caltrans filed motions to enforce the order and to disqualify Shepardson and three experts, which the trial court also granted.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County initially ruled in favor of Caltrans, finding the email was privileged and issuing a protective order. The court later disqualified Shepardson and the experts due to their continued use and dissemination of the privileged email, despite the protective order. Johnson appealed the disqualification order, arguing the email was not privileged, Caltrans waived the privilege, and the trial court abused its discretion.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the email was indeed protected by attorney-client privilege, as it was sent by Caltrans’s attorney to a Caltrans employee for the purpose of legal defense. The court found no waiver of the privilege by Caltrans and determined that Shepardson breached his ethical obligations by using and disseminating the email. The court concluded that disqualification was appropriate to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and prevent unfair advantage. The appellate court’s decision emphasized the importance of maintaining ethical standards and the confidentiality of privileged communications. View "Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Melissa Mandell-Brown, filed a complaint against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian, asserting 16 causes of action, including claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code, as well as common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a separate statement of 161 undisputed facts, attorney declarations, and witness declarations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a separate statement in response to the motion. The court granted two continuances to the plaintiff, but she still did not file the required documents or appear at the continued hearing. The court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of her causes of action.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), by granting the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for summary judgment due to the plaintiff's non-compliance with the procedural requirements, especially given the complexity of the case and the multiple continuances already granted. View "Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law

Hub Alan Freeman and Rod Alan Freeman were domestic partners and then spouses for over 15 years before separating. After their marital dissolution trial, the family court ordered Hub to pay Rod $2,100 a month in permanent spousal support. The court also determined that the community had a 60.2 percent interest in a rental property that Hub had purchased prior to their domestic partnership. The court found Rod’s expert opinion on the rental property’s value more persuasive and used it to determine the property’s value.The Superior Court of Riverside County entered a status-only judgment dissolving the marriage and domestic partnership but reserved jurisdiction over other issues. The trial addressed the amount of spousal support and the value of the community’s interest in the rental property. The family court applied the relevant support factors under Family Code section 4320 and found that Rod had the need for spousal support. The court also found that the community had a 60.2 percent interest in the rental property based on the amount of principal paid and improvements made during the relationship.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the family court’s order, finding no abuse of discretion in the spousal support award. The appellate court held that the family court properly considered the section 4320 factors and did not solely rely on the Xspouse software or the temporary spousal support order. The court also found that the family court correctly valued the rental property closer to the time of trial, as required by section 2552 of the Family Code. The appellate court rejected Hub’s due process claim, noting that he did not object to the time allocation during the trial. View "In re Marriage of Freeman" on Justia Law

Carlos Faustinos appealed from a trial court order that declined to act on his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1. Faustinos had pled guilty to forcible rape and was sentenced to 16 years in prison. In 2023, he petitioned for resentencing, citing recent ameliorative sentencing laws, but the trial court stated it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County reviewed the case and issued an order stating it did not have jurisdiction to consider Faustinos's motion for resentencing. Faustinos then appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court had erred in its determination.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case and dismissed the appeal. The court held that an order declining to act on a defendant’s unauthorized petition under section 1172.1 is non-appealable. The court explained that section 1172.1 does not entitle a defendant to seek relief, and a court is not required to respond to such a request. The court also noted that the recent statutory amendment allowing a trial court to act on its own motion under section 1172.1 does not affect the non-appealability of an order on a defendant’s unauthorized petition. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Faustinos's appeal and dismissed it accordingly. View "P. v. Faustinos" on Justia Law

Jose Manuel Cabada was convicted by a jury of second-degree robbery, evading an officer, and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. The charges stemmed from a series of events in May 2020, where Cabada stole a car, robbed a convenience store, and led police on a high-speed chase. During the robbery, Cabada intimidated the store clerk, demanded money and cigarettes, and threatened the clerk with a milk jug. He was apprehended after crashing the stolen car during the police chase.The Ventura County Superior Court sentenced Cabada to an aggregate term of 12 years and eight months in state prison. The court imposed the upper term for the robbery charge, doubled due to a prior strike, and consecutive terms for the other charges. Cabada's motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction was denied. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the robbery conviction and seeking resentencing under Senate Bill 567.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, initially affirmed the judgment. However, the California Supreme Court directed the appellate court to reconsider the case in light of People v. Lynch and Erlinger v. United States, which addressed the standard for assessing prejudice in noncompliance with Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), as modified by Senate Bill 567.Upon reconsideration, the appellate court concluded that any error in the trial court's reliance on aggravating factors not found by a jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court determined that a jury would have found the aggravating factors true beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court's statements indicated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment. View "P. v. Cabata" on Justia Law

Allan Gumarang entered into a lease agreement with Braemer on Raymond, LLC (Lessor) to operate an ice cream parlor. The lease included provisions requiring the Lessor to maintain the property and for Gumarang to obtain liability insurance and indemnify the Lessor against claims arising from his use of the property. In October 2017, a fire destroyed the property, and Gumarang alleged that the Lessor and its management (Management) failed to ensure the property had adequate fire prevention systems.Gumarang filed a lawsuit against the Lessor and Management for breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. In response, the Lessor and Management demanded that Gumarang defend and indemnify them under the lease terms. When Gumarang refused, they filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and breach of contract. Gumarang filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, arguing it arose from his protected activity of filing the lawsuit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Gumarang’s anti-SLAPP motion in part, striking the cross-claims for comparative indemnity and equitable indemnity but denied it for the contractual indemnity and breach of contract claims. The court found that the latter claims did not arise from protected activity and that the indemnity provision in the lease was enforceable. The court also denied Gumarang’s request for attorney fees, finding he did not achieve a practical benefit from the partial success of his anti-SLAPP motion.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The appellate court agreed that the cross-claims for contractual indemnity and breach of contract did not arise from Gumarang’s protected activity of filing the lawsuit but from his alleged breach of the lease’s indemnity provision. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees, concluding that Gumarang did not obtain a significant practical benefit from the partial success of his anti-SLAPP motion. View "Gumarang v. Braemer on Raymond, LLC" on Justia Law