San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

People v. Hendrix (Cal., Aug. 22, 2022, No. S265668) 2022 WL 3581973

 Summary: Hendrix walked around a house to the backyard, opened a screen door, and unsuccessful tried  to open the locked glass door behind it. Hendrix then sat down on a bench and stayed there. Hendrix was sitting on the bench when police arrived. Hendrix told police he was there to visit his cousin, but Hendrix’s cousin did not, in fact, live in the house. Hendrix was charged with burglary.

The trial court gave the jury a standard mistake of fact instruction, which informed jurors that they should not convict Hendrix if they determined he lacked criminal intent because he mistakenly believed a relevant fact —that the house belonged to his cousin and not to a stranger. The instruction specified that the mistake had to be a reasonable one. To negate the specific criminal intent required for burglary, a defendant’s mistaken belief need not be reasonable, just genuinely held. The issue before the California  Supreme Court was whether the instructional error was prejudicial and requires reversal. The Court of Appeal, concluded that Hendrix’s claim of mistake was not credible and reversal was not required. The Supreme Court held that the instructional error precluded the jury from giving full consideration to a mistake of fact claim that was supported by substantial evidence. Resolution of the issue was central to the question whether Hendrix possessed the criminal intent necessary for conviction. Whether that claim is credible is a matter for a jury to decide. The Supreme the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings.

People v. Guillory (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2022, No. A161952) 2022 WL 3442330, at *1–5

Summary: Guillory, convicted in 2004 of kidnapping, carjacking, robbing, and murder argued that  she qualifies for relief under the new felony murder resentencing law law because the jury rejected a special circumstances allegation regarding the kidnapping. She asserts this finding triggered section 1172.6, subdivision (d), which mandates vacatur and resentencing “[i]f there was a prior finding by a court or jury that the petitioner did not act with reckless indifference to human life or was not a major participant in the felony.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(2).)

The Court of Appeal found that there  were viable bases for murder liability independent of the rejected special circumstances allegation. Therefore, 1172.6, subdivision (d)(2) cannot plausibly be read to mandate automatic vacatur of the murder conviction and resentencing. The Court also reject Guillory’s claim that Proposition 57 applies retroactively to her case under People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 (Lara).

People v. Strong (Cal., Aug. 8, 2022, No. S266606) 2022 WL 3148797

Summary: Strong was convicted of felony murder with findings as to special circumstance allegations that he was “major participant” who acted “with reckless indifference to human life.” He filed a petition for resentencing based on narrowing of felony-murder doctrine. The Superior Court denied his petition and he appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review.

The Supreme Court  held that:

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JERRY VANG, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2022, No. C090365) 2022 WL 3131574, at *1

Summary: Vang was convicted of first degree felony murder of his wife. After an argument with his wife,  she fled in her car, Vang followed, eventually forced her to stop, and coerced her (through force or fear) into his vehicle. As Vang was driving away, his wife opened the door and jumped from the moving vehicle, resulting in her death.

The jury was instructed that defendant was guilty of first degree felony murder if the prosecution proved Vang committed a kidnapping; he  intended to commit the kidnapping; and, while committing the kidnapping, he  caused his wife’s death. The jury received a similar instruction on the special-circumstance allegation.

People v. Henson (Cal., Aug. 1, 2022, No. S252702) 2022 WL 3023508

Summary:  Henson was charged with unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle after having suffered three prior felony theft convictions involving vehicles, and  was subsequently charged in in a separate case with unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle after having suffered three prior felony theft convictions involving vehicles. The People sought to file unitary information covering both cases. The Superior Court, granted Henson’s motion to set aside the information with respect to counts associated with the  initial incident. The People appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded.

The Supreme Court  held that: The joinder of charges brought in separate felony complaints was proper, and the trial court was permitted to consider the preliminary hearing records from both of defendant’s felony cases, which had been joined by the People, when ruling on motion to set aside.

People v. McCune (Cal. Ct. App., July 25, 2022, No. A163579) 2022 WL 2913888, at *1–4

Summary:McCune appealed from an order awarding victim restitution, claiming the court lost jurisdiction to order restitution when it terminated his probation early after a  change to the Penal Code that shortened his probationary term from five years to two. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court retained jurisdiction to determine and award victim restitution under Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.461 irrespective of McCune’s probation status.

Facts:McCune pled no contest to felony hit and run involving injury and as part of his plea, McCune agreed to pay restitution to the victim. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed McCune on five years’ probation. McCune was ordered to pay victim restitution in an amount to be determined by the court and probation officer. The  probation department filed and served notice that the victim sought $30,166.23 to recover  medical expenses related to his injuries.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODERICK WAYNE MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., July 22, 2022, No. B308780) 2022 WL 2900929

Summary:  Mitchell filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6).

Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Mitchell filled out a form saying, “I, Roderick Mitchell, declare as follows: [¶] … [¶] I was not a major participant in the felony or I did not act with reckless indifference to human life during the course of the crime or felony.” Mitchell declared “under penalty of perjury that the above is true” and signed and dated his declaration.

People v. Beasley (Cal. Ct. App., July 21, 2022, No. G060302) 2022 WL 2866212, at *1–4

Summary: Beasley was on parole from a 25-to-life sentence when he committed first degree robbery, using  a knife in the commission of the offense, which exposed him to a maximum sentence of at least 35 years to life. The trial court dismissed all three of Beasley’s prior strike convictions, his three prior serious felony convictions and the weapon-use enhancement, and sentenced him to the low term of two years in prison. The district attorney  filed this appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded  the trial court’s order dismissing the prior strike convictions plainly “fell outside the bounds of reason under the applicable law and the relevant facts.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 164  (Williams.)  the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to allow Beasley an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea.

Factual and Procedural Background

People v. Torres (Cal. Ct. App., June 16, 2022, No. 2D CRIM. B318399) 2022 WL 2712232, at *1, as modified (July 13, 2022)

Summary: VC 2800.2 is a wobbler; as a misdemeanor the punishment is “confinement in the county jail for not less than six months nor more than one year.” The trial court may exercise its discretion to grant probation for a violation of the section.

Here the court granted probation and imposed 180 days in jail, saying that was required as a minimum sentence. The Court of Appeal cites PC 1203.1(a), the section authorizing probation, which says that as a condition of probation the court may “impose either imprisonment in a county jail or a fine, both, or neither.” The Court of Appeal ruled that 6 months in jail is not required when probation is granted in this context, saying, “Here we put to rest any doubt concerning whether Vehicle Code section 2800.2 subdivision (a), mandates jail time. It does not.”