Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A man named Johnathon Lerke, who was under a Murphy conservatorship, challenged his confinement in a county jail while awaiting transfer to a state hospital. Murphy conservatorships are for individuals found incompetent to stand trial and deemed a danger to others. Despite being ordered to a state hospital, Lerke was held in county jail for months due to a lack of space at the hospital. He argued that his confinement in jail was unauthorized and violated his rights.The Superior Court initially found Lerke incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to a state hospital for competency restoration. After nearly two years, the hospital reported that Lerke had not regained competence. Subsequently, a Murphy conservatorship was established, requiring his placement in a state hospital. However, due to the unavailability of space, he remained in county jail. Lerke's counsel requested his release or transfer to a local psychiatric hospital, but the court denied the request, stating that he would remain in jail until a state hospital bed became available.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that no legal authority permitted Lerke’s indefinite detention in county jail pending his transfer to the state hospital. The statutory framework requires conservatees to be placed in treatment facilities that promote their treatment and protect the public, and county jails do not meet these requirements. Although the court found Lerke’s confinement in jail unlawful, it denied habeas relief because he had already been transferred to an authorized treatment facility during the proceedings. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied as moot. View "In re Lerke" on Justia Law

Annalycia Jenkins, a former employee of Dermatology Management, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit against her employer after resigning. She alleged unfair competition, and the employer sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Jenkins signed on her first day of work. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.The San Luis Obispo County Superior Court found the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable due to its lack of mutuality, shortened statute of limitations, unreasonable discovery restrictions, and requirement for the parties to equally share the arbitrator’s fees and costs. Procedurally, the court noted the agreement was a contract of adhesion, pre-signed by the employer months before Jenkins was hired, and presented to her on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without the presence of the Chief People Officer.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable due to the inequality of bargaining power and the pre-signed nature of the agreement. It also upheld the finding of substantive unconscionability, noting the lack of mutuality, the unreasonable one-year statute of limitations, the unfair cost-sharing provision, and the restrictive discovery terms. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the unconscionable provisions, as doing so would condone an illegal scheme and incentivize employers to draft one-sided agreements. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Jenkins v. Dermatology Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Laura Lazar sued real estate brokers Lynette Bishop, Shen Shulz, Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., and Shen Realty, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty related to the sale of her father's Malibu house. Lazar's father, Daniel Gottlieb, had assigned his causes of action to her. The complaint alleged that the brokers failed to disclose a dual agency and did not work to obtain the highest possible sale price, resulting in a sale price significantly lower than the house's value.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Lazar lacked standing to sue because the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was not assignable under Civil Code section 954. The court likened the relationship between a real estate broker and client to that of an attorney and client, which involves a highly personal and confidential relationship, making such claims nonassignable. Lazar appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that a cause of action for breach of a real estate broker’s fiduciary duties, which seeks only damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, is assignable. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the remaining grounds argued in the defendants' motion. The appellate court found that the transactional nature of the broker-client relationship, unlike the attorney-client relationship, does not involve highly personalized rights of recovery, and thus, the claim is assignable. View "Lazar v. Bishop" on Justia Law

A bicyclist was struck by a vehicle while crossing a marked, non-signalized crosswalk on an onramp from Jeffrey Road in Irvine, leading to the I-405 freeway northbound. The bicyclist’s parents sued the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Irvine, claiming the crosswalk was dangerous due to the lack of a signal, inadequate signage, and a high speed limit. They alleged these factors contributed to their daughter's death and that the public entities failed to warn of the dangerous condition.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Caltrans and the City. The court found no triable issue of material fact regarding design immunity, which shields public entities from liability for creating a dangerous condition if the design was approved by a discretionary authority. The court also ruled that the lack of a traffic control signal did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to show the alleged dangerous condition was a concealed trap or that there was a failure to warn.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Caltrans had established design immunity and that the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of material fact. The appellate court also found that Caltrans had no notice of the alleged dangerous condition, as there were no similar accidents in the area in the decade prior. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Caltrans had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, which is necessary for a failure-to-warn claim. View "Kabat v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Roderick Barnes III was convicted by a jury of three counts of attempted murder, three counts of attempted robbery, and three counts of assault with a firearm. The jury also found that Barnes personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and that he participated in a criminal street gang, committing the crimes for the benefit of the gang. Barnes was sentenced to 70 years to life in prison.Barnes appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge against a Black prospective juror, failing to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 332, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang participation conviction and enhancements. The People conceded the latter two points but argued that the gang-related offenses could be retried.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in overruling Barnes’s objection to the peremptory challenge. The court determined that the prosecutor’s reasons for striking the juror were not valid and that the trial court improperly considered reasons not stated by the prosecutor. The court also found that substantial evidence did not support the gang participation conviction and enhancements, as the prosecution failed to provide a sufficient foundation for the expert’s opinion that the murder of P.M. commonly benefited the gang.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in its entirety and remanded the case for a new trial on counts 1 through 9. The court held that the prosecution could not retry Barnes for the gang participation offense or the gang enhancements due to insufficient evidence. View "People v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The case involves the appellant, who was convicted by a jury of three counts of forcible rape and three counts of incest against his biological daughter, who was 16 and 17 years old at the time. The appellant argued that the incest charges should be reversed because the prosecution did not present genetic testing evidence or evidence that he was married to and cohabiting with the victim’s mother when the victim was conceived. He contended that such evidence was necessary to establish he was the victim’s biological father, making both the jury instructions and the evidence insufficient.The Superior Court of Riverside County reviewed the case, where the jury convicted the appellant of all counts and found true all the allegations against him. The court sentenced the appellant to a term of life without the possibility of parole for one count of rape, along with additional consecutive and concurrent sentences for the other counts, resulting in a total aggregate sentence of 22 years and 8 months followed by life without the possibility of parole.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments, stating that genetic testing or evidence of marriage and cohabitation is not necessary to establish biological parenthood. The court found that other evidence, such as testimony from the victim and the appellant’s parents, was sufficient to establish the appellant as the biological father. The court also concluded that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding of forcible rape, including the victim’s lack of consent and the appellant’s use of force and duress. The court affirmed the judgment, including the appellant’s sentence, finding it was not cruel and unusual punishment. View "People v. Torres" on Justia Law

In 2008, Charome Davis was charged with the murder of Rudy Henderson, Jr. and possession of a firearm by a felon. Davis pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted to using a firearm in the commission of the offense, resulting in a 21-year prison sentence. In April 2022, Davis filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that recent changes to the murder statutes meant he could not be convicted of murder.The Alameda County Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing where the prosecution presented evidence, including a police interview with a witness, R.L., and the preliminary hearing transcript. R.L. had initially told police that Davis was involved in the shooting and described the events leading up to Henderson's death. However, at the preliminary hearing, R.L. was uncooperative and claimed not to remember the events or her previous statements.The trial court found R.L.'s initial police interview more credible than her preliminary hearing testimony. Based on R.L.'s detailed account and other circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that Davis was the actual killer and had acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court denied Davis's petition for resentencing, finding sufficient evidence to support the original conviction.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that Davis was the actual killer, based on R.L.'s statements and the circumstantial evidence presented. Consequently, the denial of Davis's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 was upheld. View "People v. Davis" on Justia Law

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law

The case involves Stephen James Lattin, who was convicted of assault with a firearm and other related charges. Lattin contended that a gun must be loaded to commit assault with a firearm unless used as a club or bludgeon. He requested a jury instruction to this effect, which the trial court declined. Lattin also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for assault with a firearm.In the lower court, Lattin was initially convicted of four counts of assault with a firearm and other charges. However, the appellate court reversed these convictions due to a failure to instruct on self-defense. On remand, the prosecution refiled the assault charges, and a second jury convicted Lattin of one count of assault with a firearm and three counts of simple assault. The trial court sentenced him to nine years and four months in prison, including the upper term for the assault with a firearm conviction.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that there is no brightline rule in California requiring a gun to be loaded to commit assault with a firearm. The court concluded that if ammunition is readily available, it is a question for the jury whether the defendant has the means to load the gun and shoot immediately. The court also found that the trial court erred in imposing the upper term sentence based on aggravating factors that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by section 1170(b). The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "P. v. Lattin" on Justia Law

Richard Manuel Nava, while serving a life sentence, stabbed another inmate with a sharpened piece of metal. He was convicted of several crimes, including under Penal Code sections 4500 and 4501. Section 4500 criminalizes assaults by life prisoners with malice aforethought using force likely to produce great bodily injury or a deadly weapon. Section 4501 similarly criminalizes assaults by prisoners with a deadly weapon, except as provided in Section 4500. Nava appealed his conviction under section 4501, arguing it does not apply to life prisoners.The Superior Court of Sacramento County found Nava guilty on all counts, including violations of sections 4500 and 4501 for the same conduct. The court sentenced him to 27 years to life for the section 4500 violation and 25 years to life for possessing a weapon in a penal institution, to be served concurrently. The sentence for the section 4501 violation was imposed but stayed. Nava filed a timely appeal.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that a person convicted under section 4500 cannot also be convicted under section 4501 for the same conduct due to the clause “[e]xcept as provided in Section 4500” in section 4501. This clause indicates that section 4501 does not apply when section 4500 governs the conduct. Consequently, the court reversed Nava’s conviction under section 4501, directing the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this modification and to forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "P. v. Nava" on Justia Law