Articles Posted in New Criminal Case Law

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.

In re Van Houten (Cal. Ct. App., May 30, 2023, No. B320098) 2023 WL 3712946, at *1

Summary: Van Houten petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2020 grant of parole. Van Houten is serving concurrent sentences of seven years to life for the 1969 murders of Rosemary and Leno La Bianca, which she committed with other members of a cult led by Charles Manson. This is the fourth time a governor has reversed Van Houten’s parole.

The Governor found inadequate Van Houten’s explanation of how she fell under Manson’s influence and engaged in her life crimes. The Governor further found that recent statements Van Houten made were inconsistent with statements she made at the time of the killings, indicating “gaps in Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both.”  Van Houten’s most recent criminal risk assessment found her at low risk for violent recidivism, but the Governor found several “historical factors” identified in that assessment “remain salient” to Van Houten’s current dangerousness.

Garcia v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Cal. Ct. App., May 30, 2023, No. E080436) 2023 WL 3718448, at *1

Summary: Garcia was diagnosed as having porphyria, a rare condition that is potentially fatal, especially if not properly treated. During an attack of porphyria, the skin becomes extremely sensitive to sunlight; sun exposure can cause burning pain and blisters.

Garcia while awaiting trial on charges including murder made a series of requests in that case, for testing, evaluation, treatment, and preventive measures to deal with his porphyria. The trial Judge Anthony R. Villalobos denied Garcia’s ex parte application for multiple measures — including being given protective clothing, being kept out of direct sunlight, and being transported only in air-conditioned vehicles with tinted windows.

People v. Cooper (Cal., May 25, 2023, No. S273134) 2023 WL 3637806

Summary: Cooper  was convicted of first degree murder with gang and firearm enhancements. He appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme Court granted review . The Supreme Court held that trial court’s error was not harmless in failing to provide jury instruction that alleged predicate offenses must have commonly benefited gang in more than reputational manner.

Assembly Bill 333

Estrada v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2023, No. A166474) 2023 WL 2320352, at *1

 Summary:  Represented by the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender Petitioners sought  a writ of mandate or prohibition requiring respondent Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to dismiss their cases for violating their speedy trial rights under Penal Code section 1382. Petitioners contend there was no good cause to continue their cases past the statutory deadline, maintaining the superior court can no longer rely on the “exceptional circumstances” resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeal concluded the superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause to continue their trial dates past the statutory deadlines.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Criminal Trial Delays