San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

In re TRAVIS LANELL MONTGOMERY on Habeas Corpus. (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2024, No. D083970) 2024 WL 4099744, at *1

Summary: Montgomery appealed an order denying a motion for discovery he made in connection with a postjudgment petition for writ of habeas corpus that sought relief for alleged violations of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA or Act). The Court concluded the order is not appealable and dismissed the appeal.

In 2008, a jury found Montgomery guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery and one count each of robbery, attempted robbery, and possession of a firearm by a felon; found true firearm and gang enhancement allegations; and found true Montgomery had two prior juvenile adjudications that constituted strikes under the “Three Strikes” law. The trial court sentenced Montgomery to prison for a term of 61 years to life that was later reduced to 26 years to life. (People v. Henderson (Oct. 5, 2010, D054493) [nonpub. opn.].)

People v. Ramirez (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2024, No. G063224) 2024 WL 3869450, at *1

Summary: Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “once a vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, a police officer may order the driver to exit the vehicle without any articulable justification.” (People v. Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872 (Hoyos), citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, 111, fn. 6 (Mimms).)

Here, two police officers on routine patrol when they stopped a car for a traffic violation. About three minutes into the stop, Booth ordered the driver, Ramirez, out of his car. As Ramirez was being removed from the car, Driscoll saw a handgun just behind the driver’s seat.

People v. Moore (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2024, No. A167918) 2024 WL 3754712, at *1–2

Summary: Moore pleaded no contest to the charge of stalking in violation of Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (a).  Moore appealed, challenging his permanent revocation of probation following his admission to a probation violation on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on his attorney’s failure to request pretrial mental health diversion (§ 1001.36). Moore was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause to pursue this appeal. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) The contrary holding in People v. Hill (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1190, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 153 has been implicitly abrogated by our Supreme Court in People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 846, 529 P.3d 1116. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because Moore failed to obtain the requisite certificate of probable cause.

Background

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SCOTLANE McCUNE, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal., Aug. 8, 2024, No. S276303) 2024 WL 3736802, at *1–2

Summary: California law mandates that individuals who are convicted of a crime must be ordered to make full restitution to their victims “in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(B); see Pen. Code, § 1202.4.) When a victim’s losses are not ascertainable at the time the defendant is sentenced, the sentencing court must issue a restitution order providing “that the amount shall be determined at the direction of the court.” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).) The court then “shall retain jurisdiction over a person subject to a restitution order for purposes of imposing or modifying restitution until such time as the losses may be determined.” (Id., § 1202.46.)

Here, McCune was placed on felony probation for five years and ordered at sentencing to pay victim restitution in an amount to be determined. McCune’s probation period was shortened by new legislation capping felony probation at two years. The trial court then fixed the amount of victim restitution.  McCune argues the order came too late because, under the probation statute, the trial court’s authority to modify the order of probation ended once his term of probation had expired. (Pen. Code, § 1203.3.)

Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Cal. Ct. App., July 23, 2024, No. D083446) 2024 WL 3507024, at *1

Summary: This writ presented  a question of first impression that was raised but not decided by the California Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (2020) 10 Cal.5th 329, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 267, 471 P.3d 383 (Touchstone): Whether the social media companies like Meta, Inc. (Meta) and Snap, Inc. (Snap), which access their customer’s data for their own business purposes, excludes them from the limitations imposed on the disclosure of information by the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., SCA or the Act). The Court concluded that the companies’ ability to access and use their customers’ information takes them outside the limitations of the Act.

Pina, real party in interest, was charged with the murder of his brother, Samuel, and the attempted murder of another man, and awaited trial on the charges. Pina’s defense counsel issued criminal defense subpoenas to Snap, the corporation which operates Snapchat, and Meta, the corporation that operates Facebook and Instagram, seeking social media posts and other communications made by Samuel on those platforms in the two years prior to his death. Pina sought this material because he believed it may contain information showing Samuel’s violent character.