San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

Summary: Annette Gaylene Batten served a life term for murder and was released on lifetime parole in 2017. In 2023, she committed two parole violations. Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (h) required the court to remand her to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Batten appealed, arguing that under a statute enacted in 2020, someone convicted of murder but released on parole after July 2020 would have been placed on parole for only three years and woud have been eligible for punishments other than mandatory remand to the CDCR. (§§ 3000.01, as enacted by Stats. 2020, ch. 29, § 18, 3000.08, subds. (f) & (g).) Batten claims her right to equal protection was violated under strict scrutiny or, in the alternative, rational basis review. The Court of Appeal affirmed because a rational basis review applies and that there is a rational basis to treat the two groups of inmates differently.

Background

Batten was convicted of first degree murder in 1996 and sentenced to life in prison. She was released on parole in August 2017. She performed well on parole, but at a parole revocation hearing in December 2023, Batten admitted two violations of the conditions of her parole based on a 2021 driving under the influence arrest. The trial court ordered Batten’s parole revoked and remanded her to the custody of the CDCR and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) for future parole consideration. In June 2024, the Board denied Batten’s request for parole for one year.

People v. Gray (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2025, No. C099048) 2025 WL 783249, at *1

Facts: A jury found Gray guilty of second degree burglary of a vehicle, attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle, conspiracy to commit theft, vandalism, and possession of burglar’s tools. The trial court sentenced Gray to an aggregate term of five years four months. On appeal, Gray argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of second degree burglary of a vehicle and attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.

An amended information charged Gray with second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 459; count one), grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); count two), attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle (§§ 459, 664, subd. (a); count three), conspiracy to commit the crime of theft (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 484, subd. (a); count four), vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); count five), and possession of burglar’s tools (§ 466; count six). The trial court declared a mistrial on count two and a jury found Gray guilty of all remaining counts.

Navarro v. Cervera (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 22, 2025, No. A169830) 2025 WL 262412, at *1

Summary: Navarro appeals from an order denying her request to renew her domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Cervera. Navarro asserts the trial court abused its discretion in concluding her fear of future abuse was unreasonable. The Court of Appeal reversed with directions that the trial court grant the renewal request and decide whether the DVRO should be renewed for five or more years, or permanently.

Background

People v. Bey (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 16, 2025, No. B335964) 2025 WL 209939, at *1

Summary: Bey appealed his conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); and carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a).  Bey claimed it violated his Second Amendment rights; and California’s concealed carry license laws are unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, 10, (Bruen). The Court disagreed and affirmed.

Felon in Possession of a Firearm Conviction Does Not Violate His Second Amendment Rights

People v. Corbi (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 25, 35 [327 Cal.Rptr.3d 284, 289], as modified on denial of reh’g (Nov. 20, 2024), review filed (Dec. 4, 2024)

Summary: Corbi was convicted in the Superior Court, San Diego County, of second degree murder with a firearm enhancement. Corbi appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument comments about defendant did not preserve defendant’s appellate argument alleging the prosecutor’s remarks violated the California Racial Justice Act (RJA).

People v. Hodge (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2024, No. B337339) 2024 WL 5243001, at *1

Summary: Hodge filed a notice of appeal from a trial court order denying relief for  (1) a motion under the Racial Justice Act (Pen. Code, § 745); and (2) a request for resentencing under section 1172.1. The trial court’s order was not appealable and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Hodge pleaded no contest in 2012 to three felony counts and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 21 years.

People v. Stubblefield (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 26, 2024, No. H048598) 2024 WL 5231745, at *1–2

Summary: A jury found Stubblefield guilty of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and false imprisonment of Jane Doe, an intellectually disabled woman. The jury found he personally used a firearm in the commission of the first two offenses. The trial court sentenced Stubblefield to a term of 15 years to life in prison.

The prosecution alleged Stubblefield threatened Doe with a handgun while she was at his house. The police decided not to search Stubblefield’s house after Doe reported the incident, and no gun was introduced into evidence. In closing arguments, the prosecutor asserted the police made the decision not to search Stubblefield’s house based partly on the fact that he was a famous Black man. The prosecutor claimed a search would have created “a storm of controversy,” and added, “Can you imagine in Morgan Hill when they search an African-American –,” defense counsel objected. The trial court sustained the objection but gave the jury no admonishments with respect to this part of the prosecutor’s arguments.