San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

People v. Virgen (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2025, No. B333314) 2025 WL 1032450

Summary: Virgen was convicted of second-degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The Court of Appeal held that:

Thr trial court committed instructional error when it used two pattern jury instructions that, when read together, could have allowed jury to find defendant guilty of second-degree murder under uncharged-conspiracy theory, without finding that he acted with malice aforethought, and the error was not harmless.

People v. Gomez (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2025, No. H051210) 2025 WL 1024681, at *1

Summary: Police found a flare gun in Gomez’s possession. Based on an officer’s testimony describing the flare gun, the trial court found Gomez guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon under Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). The Court of Appeal held the prosecution must prove the flare gun was designed to be used as a weapon. Here, the record contained insufficient evidence to support such a finding. The court vacated the conviction on that count.

The court reversed the judgment, vacated the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, and remanded the matter for resentencing.

People v. McGhee (Cal., Apr. 3, 2025, No. S169750) 2025 WL 1000847, at *1

Summary: A jury convicted McGhee of three counts of first degree murder and four counts of attempted murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664, subd. (a); The jury found true the special circumstances that he committed multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and that he committed two of the three murders while participating in, and for the benefit of, a criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). The first jury deadlocked as to penalty. On retrial of the penalty phase, a different jury returned a verdict of death.

The California Supreme Court reversed McGhee’s conviction and sentence because of the erroneous discharge of a juror during guilt phase deliberations,

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