New Case Law

November 16, 2019

Public Defender cannot be appointed on People’s appeal of a suppression order in a misdemeanor case

Gardner v. Appellate Division of Superior Court of San Bernardino County (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 12, 2019, No. E066330) 2019 WL 5886241, at *1–4

Right to appointed counsel on appeal in a misdemeanor case

The California Supreme Court held that, when the People appeal from a suppression order in a misdemeanor case, the defendant, if indigent, has a right to appointed counsel. This case was remanded to determine whether the Public Defender’s appointment for purposes of trial continues for purposes of the appeal, or whether, the appellate division must appoint new counsel. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court is not statutorily authorized to appoint the Public Defender under these circumstances.

November 11, 2019

Trial court erred in dismissing re-sentencing petition for felony murder

by Uthman Law Office

Trial court erred in dismissing re-sentencing petition for felony murder

People v. Ramirez, 2019 WL 5387737 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), 5 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2019)

Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2019 WL 5387737

November 1, 2019

Police cannot automatically conduct a pat down search of a robbery suspect for weapons

by Uthman Law Office

In re Jeremiah S. (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 18, 2019, No. A155856) 2019 WL 5302782, at *1–7

The robbery, detention, pat search and arrest arrest of Jeremiah S.

On July 2, 2018, Ornin Gosuwin was carrying a shoulder bag and holding an iPhone as she walked on Spear Street toward Market Street in San Francisco. Two young men, both wearing hoodies, came from around the corner. Gosuwin stopped to let the young men pass. One of them pushed her left shoulder and caused her to fall to the ground and both stood over her and pulled her bag and phone away. The assailants continued on Market Street in the direction of the Embarcadero.

October 27, 2019

A complaint dismissed for prosecutorial vindictiveness cannot be refiled

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Sanchez, 2019 WL 5304531 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2019)

Summary:

Angel Sanchez (Sanchez) was charged by re-filed complaint with robbery, assault with a deadly weapon on a transit passenger, and receiving stolen property. The magistrate granted Sanchez’s motion to dismiss the complaint for prosecutorial vindictiveness, The Superior Court, San Francisco County, No. MCN17010380, Garrett L. Wong, J., denied reinstatement of complaint. The People appealed.

October 22, 2019

Prosecution Must Justify a Delay in Charging a Defendant When Prejudice Has Been Shown

by Uthman Law Office

Dickerson v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty., 40 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1, 252 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871, 874–82 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2019)

Petitioners contend that delays in charging each of them resulted in a deprivation of due process rights under the California Constitution. In both cases, the trial court found that Petitioners suffered prejudice due to the prosecution’s delays in charging them. The trial court then erred in failing to require competent evidence justifying the delay by the prosecution.

People v. Buggs-Ten Month delay in filing of complaint

October 17, 2019

Receiving a Stolen Vehicle Valued at $950 or Less May be Treated as a Misdemeanor under Prop. 47

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Wehr, No. E070345, 2019 WL 5166227, at *1–8 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019)

Proposition 47 and Receipt of Stolen Property

The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47) amended Penal Code § 496 so that receiving any stolen property worth $950 or less is a misdemeanor. (§ 496, subd. (a).) Receipt of a stolen vehicle (Penal Code §496, subd. (a).) is a ‘wobbler,’ an offense that may be punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Here, the Court of Appeal determined which statute governs when a defendant receives a stolen vehicle worth $950 or less.

October 13, 2019

Suppression Of Illegally Obtained Evidence Cannot Be Litigated On A Motion To Dismiss Under Section 991

by Uthman Law Office

Barajas v. Appellate Division of Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2019 WL 4894231 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2019)

Arraignment on Misdemeanor charge of carrying a dirk or dagger

Eliseo Barajas was arrested and arraigned on a misdemeanor charge of carrying a dirk or dagger. Barajas sought to have the case dismissed for lack of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 991.1. Barajas argued that his initial detention was not based on conduct that could give rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal conduct had occurred. He also argued that the evidence establishing probable cause was illegally obtained and should be excluded from the probable cause determination. And he asked that the misdemeanor complaint be dismissed.

October 8, 2019

Franklin Proceedings available to juvenile lifers sentenced after People v. Franklin (2016) was decided.

by Uthman Law Office

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff & Respondent, v. MICHAEL DAMION JUDE MEDRANO, Defendant & Appellant, No. E070042, 2019 WL 4894333 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019)

Medrano sentenced to life at age 19

Michael Damion Jude Medrano was 19 years old when he committed the crimes of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count 1), two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 2 & 4), and one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3). Medrano was sentenced in December, 2017 to 25 years to life, plus seven years. His sentencing took place one and one-half years after the Supreme Court decided People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), which held that a juvenile offender who is sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence, must be “given adequate opportunity at sentencing to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to his youth.” (Id. at p. 269.) The Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the juvenile offender had been given an adequate opportunity to make such a record. (Id. at pp. 286-287.)

September 21, 2019

Aider and abettor found guilty of felony-murder special circumstance is not eligible for re-sentencing under SB 1437

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Gutierrez-Salazar, 38 Cal. App. 5th 411, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178 (Ct. App. 2019), reh’g denied (Aug. 30, 2019)

Defendant Dionicio Gutierrez-Salazar was by a jury of two murders for homicides committed in 2013 and 2015. As to the 2013 homicide, defendant was convicted of first degree murder on a felony-murder theory.

SB 1427 Amends Felony Murder Rule in California

September 14, 2019

Hearsay Admissible to Deny Dismissal or Reduction of Marijuana Convictions under Proposition 6

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Hall, No. 2D CRIM. B292330, 2019 WL 4267761 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2019)

Proposition 64 and reduction of marijuana convictions

Proposition 64, an initiative measure known as “the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act,” amended section 11360 and added new sections 11361.8 and 11362.1. (Stats. 2017, ch. 27 § 129.) It reduces or eliminates penalties for marijuana offenses.