San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog
New Criminal Case Law
Forced blood draw of probationer suspected of DUI does not violate the Fourth Amendment
The People, v. Manuel Miramontes Cruz, Jr.
F074667, Filed 4/25/2019; 2019 WL 1856600
Habeas Petition Granted to Vacate Special Circumstances In Felony Murder Conviction
Anthony Taylor filed a habeas petition claiming that his special circumstance finding in a felony murder conviction should be vacated due to insufficient evidence based on recent caselaw. His petition, filed 20 years after finality of direct review, was considered timely because it was brought within a year of that recent caselaw that provided him with a legal claim.
Taylor’s conviction as an idea and abettor
Anthony Taylor participated in an attempted robbery at a Livermore liquor store during which one of his accomplices shot to death a store employee. In 1994, Taylor was convicted of first degree felony murder and the jury found that the killing occurred in the commission of an attempted robbery that he aided and abetted “as a major participant” and “with reckless indifference to human life,” a special circumstance requiring a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d) (section 190.2(d) ). The special circumstance finding was previously upheld on appeal, the Court fining that Taylor was both a major participant and had made statements after the murder that showed a reckless and callous indifference for human life.
Using criminal process to collect court fees and assessments from indigents is unconstitutional
Defendants who plead or are found guilty of traffic violations and other misdemeanors are typically assessed court fees and fines under Gov. Code, § 70373, Pen. Code, § 1465.8, and Pen. Code, § 1202.4, Unpaid fines usually go to collections without further order of the court.
Courts must determine a defendant’s ability to pay fees and assessment.
The Court of Appeal ruled in People v Dueñas (285645) that when poverty is the only reason a defendant cannot pay court fee and fines, using the criminal process to collect them is unconstitutional. Its decision bars courts from imposing court fees and assessments without determining a defendant’s present ability to pay. Despite Pen. Code, § 1202.4, precluding consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay unless the judge is considering increasing the fee over the statutory minimum, the execution of any restitution fine imposed under must be stayed unless and until the trial court holds an ability to pay hearing and concludes that the defendant has the present ability to pay the restitution fine
The Consequences for Your Driver’s License if You Fail to Appear for Your California Traffic Court Date
There are many different bases upon which the DMV may decide that it is proper to suspend your driving privileges. Obviously, one way to maintain your driver’s license is to avoid things that can lead to suspension. Other times, though, when you’re on the wrong end of an improper suspension of your driving privileges, the correct step is to utilize the administrative and legal systems to fight back and get your license back. When that becomes necessary, look to an experienced San Francisco DMV defense attorney to help you.
One action the DMV can take is to place a “hold” on your license. While this may sound somewhat innocuous or less serious, it isn’t. A DMV hold can prevent you from renewing your license or can lead directly to a license suspension. One way that you can get a hold placed on your license is by failing to appear in traffic court. If you get a ticket, your ticket will contain a court date listed on it. If you don’t show up for that court date and don’t otherwise resolve your ticket, then the DMV places a hold on your license under Vehicle Code Section 40509.5.
You may have heard that California changed its laws regarding traffic court and license suspensions in 2017. Be aware that that 2107 law ended the practice of suspending licenses based on your failure to pay your traffic ticket fine, not your failure to appear in traffic court.
New Criminal Cases Law
Lawyer cannot override client’s decision to maintain innocence
Roberto Ignacio Flores was charged with attempted murder of a police officer and insisted he was not the driver of the car that injured the officer. His lawyer wanted to admit that Flores was driving the car but that he never formed the premeditated intent necessary for a conviction of first-degree murder. The evidence against Flores included a video of him in the car that hit the motorcycle officer, yet he insisted on maintaining his innocence. Flores was also later tried on possession of weapons and his lawyer wanted to concede that Flores possessed certain firearms but argue that his possession was not “knowing”because he did not know that their possession was prohibited.
Client has the right to determine fundamental objective at trial
Replacement of Right Light Ticket Cameras in San Francisco
San Francisco’s Red Light Ticket Cameras, designed to take photos of cars that run a red light have not been operating since January, 2019 as they are undergoing replacement by the SFMTA.
The SFMTA’s Automated Enforcement Program uses a network of automated cameras to enforce illegal red-light running and illegal right turns.
Red-light cameras take automatic snapshots of both the front license plate and the driver’s face when a vehicle enters an intersection after the light has changed.
California Supreme Court rules that a partial verdict of acquittal on first degree murder prevents retrial on that charge
People v. Aranda; S214116
The California Supreme Court reaffirmed its past holding that a court must accept a partial verdict of acquittal as to a charged greater offense when a jury has expressly indicated it has acquitted on that offense but has deadlocked on uncharged lesser included offenses. [Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503 (Stone)]
The Stone Rule and Federal Double Jeopardy Principles
Recent Criminal Case Law
Lawyer cannot concede client is guilty when client insists on a defense of factual innocence
Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and using a knife in the commission of the crime after his lawyer conceded his guilt of voluntary manslaughter during closing argument. Defendant’s request to replace counsel was denied at sentencing and the court and imposed a sentence of 25 years to life, plus one year for the knife enhancement.
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and held that the Defendant’s absolute Sixth Amendment right to maintain his innocence was violated when counsel conceded guilt of voluntary manslaughter during closing argument, despite the defendant disagreeing with the strategy. It did not matter that defendant did not consistently assert his right to maintain innocence or object to counsel’s concession until after he was convicted.
What is a ‘Form DS 326’ and What Should I Do if the California DMV Asks Me to Submit One?
The California Department of Motor Vehicles has very wide-ranging powers in that it can suspend or revoke a driver’s driving privileges for a lot of different reasons. One of the more common reasons is alleged concern about your health and whether you’re medically able to drive safely. If that issue arises, the DMV may contact you and ask you to complete a “Form DS 326,” also known as a Driver Medical Evaluation form, or DME. Your temptation might be to think that you can handle this type of issue on your own. Don’t make that mistake. Your ability to continue driving legally could hinge on any one of the responses contained on that form, and even a small mistake may cost you your license. Before you do anything else, reach out to an experienced San Francisco DMV defense attorney about your situation.
The DMV website states that it only requests a Form DS 326 “when medical information is needed to evaluate a driver’s medical condition in relationship to safe driving.” That all probably sounds fairly harmless on the surface. But think about this: the DMV licenses more than 26 million drivers. Certainly, a DMV with 26 million licensees won’t just go around just asking for doctors’ notes from random drivers. In actuality, the DMV only requests submission of this form from drivers that it suspects may not be safe to drive, either because of a physical disability or a mental problem. If they’re requesting the form from you, they are probably giving serious consideration to suspending your license.
The DS 326 is five-page-long form with 13 sections. The form instructs you, the driver, to complete the first three sections and for the medical provider whom you select to complete Sections 4-13. In your part, the DMV asks you to offer up a short history of your health, and to swear that you’ve told the truth in your answers. The remainder of the form is medical information provided by the doctor you select.
Supreme Court: 8th Amendment bars execution of prisoner with dementia
The State of Alabama set an execution date for prisoner who then asserted an Eight Amendment Claim because his mental condition, relating to a series of strokes, rendered him incapable of recollecting committing the crime for which he had been sentenced to die. The Alabama Circuit Court found that the prisoner was competent to be executed. Certiorari was granted.
The Supreme Court, Justice Kagan, held that:
A mental disorder that leaves a prisoner without any memory of committing his crime does not necessarily preclude execution; dementia may preclude execution; and the Supreme Court was unsure whether the state court relied on an incorrect view of the law, i.e., that only delusions, and not dementia, could preclude execution, and thus, state court’s judgment was vacated, and the case remanded.