New Case Law

September 15, 2024

DMV license suspension hearing violated Due Process

Clarke v. Gordon (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2024, No. G062856) 2024 WL 4163081, at *1

Summary: Clarke appeals from the judgment which denied his petition for a writ of mandate which challenged an administrative decision of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to suspend his driver’s license. An administrative per se (APS) hearing conducted by the DMV following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) resulted in the suspension of his license. Clarke argues the administrative decision must be reversed because (1) the manner in which the DMV conducted the administrative hearing violated due process as determined in California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517, 532-533, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 608 (DUI Lawyers); and (2) his refusal to submit to either a breath or blood test should be excused. The Court of Appeal agreed with the first contention and reversed the trial court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandate and on remand directed the court to grant the petition.

DMV Hearings and Due Process

July 21, 2024

Dismissal of charges for violation of right to speedy trial based on COVID-19 pandemic

by Uthman Law Office

Mendoza v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., June 15, 2024, No. A170135) 2024 WL 3408756, at *1–2

Summary: Mendoza appealed an order denying a motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges against her for violation of the speedy trial statute, Penal Code section 1382. The superior court denied her motion based on the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic which constituted exceptional and extraordinary circumstances warranting a finding of good cause for the delay.

The issue of whether there was good cause for the delay was not properly before the Court of Appeal. The People conceded there was no good cause. Because there was no competent evidence to support the court’s order the Court of Appeal directed the superior court to grant the motion to dismiss.

June 9, 2024

Amount that insurer is expected to pay value of future medical care is relevant in determining damages for auto accident

by Uthman Law Office

DAVID AUDISH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID MACIAS et al., Defendants and Respondents. (Cal. Ct. App., May 21, 2024, No. D081689) 2024 WL 2860272

Summary: Plaintiff Audish appealed a civil judgment after a jury verdict in an automobile collision case. The jury found Audish and defendant David both operated their vehicles negligently and each party’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Audish. The jury found Audish suffered $65,699.50 in damages, including $29,288.94 for past medical expenses, $3,620 for past non-economic losses, and $32,790.56 for future medical expenses, and it assigned each party 50 percent of the responsibility for these losses.

On appeal, Audish contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that he would have Medicare medical insurance at the age of 65. He also argues the jury returned an impermissible compromise verdict and erred by failing to award him damages for future non-economic losses. The Court of Appeal rejected these claims and affirmed the judgment.

April 14, 2024

Discretion To Dismiss An Enhancement Does Not Apply To Allow The Court To Strike The Jury’s Premeditation And Deliberation Finding

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Serrano (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2024, No. A166011) 2024 WL 1320422, at *6–9

Exercise of Discretion Under Section 1385(c)

Serrano argued that the trial court erred by failing to exercise its discretion under section 1385(c) to consider striking the jury’s premeditation and deliberation findings.

March 18, 2023

Police Officer Testimony by Telephone at DMV Administrative Hearing is Improper when Driver Objects

by Uthman Law Office

Ramirez v. Superior Court of Kern County (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2023, No. F082588) 2023 WL 2399712

Summary: A driver petitioned for writ of mandate ordering Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to set aside its driver’s license suspension order following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). The Superior Court granted the petition. DMV appealed as real party in interest. The Court of Appeal held that:

Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) provision, addressing when a presiding officer can conduct a hearing by telephone, applied to administrative per se (APS) adjudicative hearing conducted by DMV; APA’s provision, stating that a presiding officer “may not” conduct a hearing by telephone if a party objects, and regulation adopted to implement the APA provision in context of DMV adjudicative hearings, are mandatory, substantive procedural protections; and substantial evidence supported implied finding that motorist was prejudiced by police officer testifying by telephone.

March 11, 2023

Plea accepted without understanding immigration consequences may be vacated

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311 [303 Cal.Rptr.3d 670, 522 P.3d 1074]

Summary: After serving sentence, noncitizen filed statutory motion to vacate conviction pursuant to negotiated no-contest plea, because he had not understood immigration consequences of plea. The Superior Court denied the motion. Noncitizen appealed. The Court of Appeal, 2021 WL 2177264, affirmed. Review was granted by the California Supreme Court.

Holding: The Supreme Court held that noncitizen corroborated his claim that immigration consequences were a paramount concern when he entered negotiated no-contest plea.

May 22, 2022

Appellate Court Holds Misdemeanor DUI not eligible for Diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95

by Uthman Law Office

ALICIA URBIETA ISLAS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. (Cal. Ct. App., May 20, 2022, No. H049445) 2022 WL 1597051, at *1–3

Summary: Islas was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a) and (b).) She moved for pretrial diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95, which gives judges discretion to offer diversion to misdemeanor defendants. The trial court denied diversion based on Vehicle Code section 23640, under which DUI defendants are categorically ineligible for diversion. Two appellate courts have published decisions finding misdemeanor DUI defendants similarly situated to petitioner categorically ineligible for Penal Code section 1001.95 diversion. (Grassi v. Superior Court (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 283 (Grassi); Tan v. Superior Court (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 130 (Tan).) We agree with the reasoning in those authorities and will therefore deny the petition for writ of mandate.

Issue: Whether misdemeanor DUI defendants are categorically ineligible from Penal Code section 1001.95 diversion by operation of Vehicle Code section 23640.

April 16, 2022

DMV’s Administrative Hearings to Suspend Licenses after DUI’s Violates Due Process

by Uthman Law Office

Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES et al., Defendants and Appellants. (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 15, 2022, No. B305604) 2022 WL 1125370

DMV Administrative Hearings after DUI Arrests and challenge by California DUI Lawyers

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) conducts administrative hearings to suspend a driver’s license after an arrest for driving under the influence. At these hearings, the DMV hearing officers act both as advocates for the DMV and as triers of fact. The DMV authorizes its managers to change hearing officers’ decisions, or order the hearing officers to change their decisions, without notice to the driver.

January 15, 2022

Branded Title and Restitution

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Newsom (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 10, 2022, No. B312652) 2022 WL 92779, at *1

What is “Branded Title”

A “branded title” can reduce a car’s resale value.

December 4, 2021

Bench Warrant Can Issue Even Without Showing Defendant Had Notice

by Uthman Law Office

Valderas v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2021, No. D078735) 2021 WL 5575569, at *1

Summary: Valderas, facing several felony charges, did not appear at a status conference/trial call on October 20, 2020. It was the second consecutive court appearance that Valderas missed. The trial court issued a bench warrant for Valderas but ordered the warrant to be held until December 8, 2020, the date on which the court had set a readiness conference. The court sent notice to Valderas by mail to his last known address. When Valderas did not appear at the December 8 hearing, the court lifted its hold on the bench warrant.

Valderas seeks a writ of mandamus to recall the December 8 bench warrant. The court denied Valderas’s relief.