Articles Posted in New Criminal Case Law

People v. Suggs (Cal. Ct. App., July 31, 2023, No. C096555) 2023 WL 4861699

Summary: The Court of Appeal held that traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged when police officer saw temporary registration documents in window, realized defendant had not committed Vehicle Code violation that was purpose of stop, and then made inquiries aimed at finding evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Suggs appealed  from a judgment following entry of a plea of no contest to misdemeanor possession of a concealed firearm after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence of the firearm and methamphetamine found in his vehicle. On appeal, Suggs argued the detention that preceded the search of his vehicle was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.

Facts: Sacramento Police Officer Owen Anstess saw defendant driving a car that displayed only paper plates in violation of Vehicle Code section 5200 that requires a vehicle to attach license plates to both the front and back of the vehicle.  Officer Anstess initiated a traffic stop of Suggs because had seen the paperwork displayed in the window as required by law.

Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., July 21, 2023, No. A164180) 2023 WL 4673776

Summary: Nonprofit organization brought action against city, municipal transportation agency, and police department challenging agency’s policy of towing safely and lawfully parked vehicles without a warrant based solely on the accrual of unpaid parking tickets, moving for writ of mandate and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Superior Court, San Francisco County, denied the organization’s motion. The organization appealed .

Holdings: The Court of Appeal held that: The community caretaking exception to warrant requirement was inapplicable to municipal transportation agency’s towing policy, and municipal transportation agency’s towing policy was not permissible under forfeiture rationale.

People v. Leal (Cal. Ct. App., July 25, 2023, No. C096463) 2023 WL 4729326, at *1

Summary: The Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is fundamental. Generally warrantless searches are unreasonable. (Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576.) The automobile exception provides ‘police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.’ ” (People v. McGee (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 796, 801.) The scope of a warrantless search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.” (United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798, 824 (Ross).) Whether a warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception depends on the facts,  because probable cause exists “where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” (Ornelas v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 696.)

The facts here were that the searching police officer received information via a radio broadcast from another officer that a juvenile on probation with a firearm restriction likely placed a firearm under the front passenger seat in Leal’s car before he  got into his car and drove away. Leal’s car was under constant surveillance from the time of the alleged firearm placement until the searching officer conducted the search. A search of the passenger compartment of his car found no firearm. Then, the searching officer decided to search the trunk, where he discovered a firearm. Leal was charged with several offenses and filed a motion to suppress the firearm; the trial court denied the motion. Leal pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The issue is whether the search of Leal’s trunk was justified under the automobile exception.

People v. Carney (Cal., July 20, 2023, No. S260063) 2023 WL 4630861, at *1

Summary: In People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834 (Sanchez), the California Supreme Court upheld the first degree murder conviction of a defendant who had engaged in a gang-related shootout that left a bystander dead. It was unclear whether the defendant or a rival gang member had fired the fatal shot. However, the Court  held that the defendant’s “commission of life-threatening deadly acts in connection with his attempt on [the rival gang member’s] life was a substantial concurrent, proximate, cause of [the victim’s] death.”

This case  involves a gun battle among rivals, but unlike in Sanchez, the evidence conclusively established that the fatal shot was fired by someone other than the two defendants who were convicted of first degree murder. The

People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Cal. Ct. App., July 11, 2023, No. E080076) 2023 WL 4444079, at *1

Riverside County Superior Court’s lack of judges and impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Superior Court for the County of Riverside has not had enough judges for nearly twenty years. The Court was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. It had to periodically suspend all jury trials and various deadlines, close courtrooms, and continue numerous matters.

In re D.L. (Cal. Ct. App., July 3, 2023, No. A164432) 2023 WL 4342391, at *1

Summary: D.L., a minor at the time of his offense, appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded firearm in San Francisco. (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a).) Citing the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (Bruen), D.L. argues that section 25850 must be unconstitutional on its face as a result of its relationship to California’s laws for obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. The Court rejected  D.L.’s contention and affirmed.

California’s “good cause” requirement for a concealed carry license

 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAFAEL CAMPBELL, Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY B. PRICE, Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHON ANTHONY, Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAMUEL FLOWERS, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., June 30, 2023, No. A162472) 2023 WL 4286790, at *22–23

Appellants Price, Campbell and Flowers contend that they were entitled to relief under section 1172.6 from their convictions of evading a police officer proximately causing death under Vehicle Code section 2800.3, subdivision (b). Appellants argued that these convictions were, in effect, murder convictions that were based on the same facts and natural and probable consequences theory as the second degree murder convictions and did not require personal intent to kill.

 1172.6 provides resentencing relief for defendants convicted of murder, attempted murder and manslaughter but not for violations of Vehicle Code section 2800.3, subdivision (b).

NICHOLAS YEDINAK, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. (Cal. Ct. App., June 23, 2023, No. E080685) 2023 WL 4144994

Summary: Yedinak petitioned for a writ of mandate challenging the trial judge’s order denying him bail. He argues the order fails to satisfy the legal requirements for pretrial detention articulated in article I, section 12, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution (section 12(b)) and In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135 (Humphrey).

Yedinak was charged with two counts of felony child abuse based on allegations he inflicted severe, non-accidental injuries to his six-week-old son. Yedinak had been out on bail for  two years and nine months making each court appearance and living in the community without incident. After his preliminary hearing, the judge issued a pretrial detention order based on a finding that other children in the community would probably not be safe if Yedinak were released pending trial, given the violent nature of the charged crimes.

Continue reading

Raju v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., June 8, 2023, No. A164736) 2023 WL 3883099, at *1–10

Summary: Manohar Raju and other plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their taxpayer action against the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (defendant court), Plaintiffs brought a taxpayer-standing cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy alleged violations of Penal Code provisions that impose a duty on the courts to expedite criminal proceedings, by prioritizing them over civil cases, and to follow specific procedural steps before a criminal trial may be continued beyond statutory time limits.

The trial court sustained the demurrer pursuant to Ford v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 737 (Ford), which held that one department of a superior court may not restrain the implementation of a judgment entered by another department in a prior action. The Court of Appeal found that Ford is not relevant to the taxpayer cause of action and reversed the judgment.