Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Leo Sweeney was convicted of 10 felonies, all arising out of a take-over bank robbery, and sentenced to a total of 82 years to life in prison. He filed a petition to redesignate two of those felonies as misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47 (this would not have changed the total term). The trial court denied the petition, ruling that defendant was not eligible for relief under Proposition 47, because the two felonies at issue were accompanied by gang enhancements. Defendant appealed. After review, the Court of Appeals held that the gang enhancements did not disqualify defendant from relief. However, he failed to carry his burden to show that the two felonies involved property worth $950 or less. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded with directions to allow defendant to file an amended petition. View "California v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Cynthia C. and Gerardo L. appealed the termination of their parental rights to their daughter, R. L. Gerardo contended the jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders, and all subsequent orders, had to be reversed because the juvenile court did not have home state jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. He also contended he did not receive notice of the proceedings pursuant to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Cynthia joined in Gerardo's arguments to the extent they inured to her benefit, but raised no other issues. After review of the trial court record, the Court of Appeals found Cynthia and Gerardo's arguments unavailing, and affirmed termination of their parental rights. View "In re R.L." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jeff Boswell was found guilty by jury of murdering Blanche Griffin while engaged in the commission or attempted commission of a robbery and burglary, and burglary of an inhabited dwelling. The jury also found Boswell guilty of two counts of commercial burglary and petty theft. The trial court found true certain prior conviction allegations. The court sentenced Boswell to a total term of life without the possibility of parole, plus 20 years and four months. Boswell appealed, contending: (1) his burglary conviction should be vacated because it was a lesser-included offense of the burglary special circumstance attached to his murder conviction; (2) consolidation of the charges denied him the due process right to a fair trial; (3) the trial court prejudicially erred in allowing the prosecution to admit certain crime scene and autopsy photographs; and (4) the abstract of judgment contains clerical errors. After review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment as modified to correct certain clerical errors in the abstract of judgment. View "California v. Boswell" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Javante Scott appealed after the trial court, at a resentencing hearing, imposed the same 120-years-to-life term as at his original sentencing. Defendant was a minor at the time he committed his crimes, but was tried as an adult and convicted of three counts of attempted murder with firearm enhancements. Defendant argued the sentence was cruel and unusual because it imposed a de facto life sentence on him as a juvenile offender. The State argued that a new statute, Penal Code section 3051,1 which guaranteed defendant a future parole eligibility hearing, rendered the sentence constitutional. After review, the Court of Appeals held that section 3051 complied with the central constitutional requirement that the State provide a juvenile offender with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release within his or her expected lifetime. For this reason, the Court affirmed but with directions that the trial court determined whether defendant was afforded an adequate opportunity to make a record that complied with the requirements set forth in "California v. Franklin" (63 Cal.4th 261 (2016)). View "California v. Scott" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a deadly shooting that took place in 1992. Several suspects were identified in the wake of the shooting, but the case was not prosecuted until 2011. By that time, an eyewitness who had exonerated petitioner Darrell Booth could not be found, and the case proceeded to trial in his absence. Even without this favorable defense witness, the jury acquitted Booth of first degree murder, and found him guilty of second degree murder. In this consolidated proceeding, Booth challenged his conviction by direct appeal and petition for writ of habeas corpus. Among the claims in his habeas petition, Booth argued his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the case based on precharging delay. After review, the Court of Appeals agreed with this contention, granted Booth’s petition, reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial. In light of this disposition, Booth’s appeal was moot. View "California v. Booth" on Justia Law

Defendant Steven Nachbar pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger. The court placed him on formal probation and required him to register as a sex offender. Defendant appealed, challenging four of the conditions to his probation: that he (1) not have photographic equipment; (2) not have toys, video games, or similar items that attract children; (3) obtain approval of his residence from his probation officer; and (4) submit to warrantless and suspicionless searches of his computers and recordable media. Furthermore, defendant contended the trial court erred by requiring him to register as a sex offender "for life" because he may someday obtain a certificate of rehabilitation that relieved him of the duty to continue registering. After review of the case, the Court of Appeals concluded defendant forfeited his challenges to the conditions regarding toys and residence approval because he did not object to them in the trial court. His challenges to the remaining probation conditions and registration all lacked merit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "California v. Nachbar" on Justia Law

Forney entered a no contest plea to unlawful oral copulation (Pen. Code 288a(b)(2)) and unlawful sexual intercourse (261.5(d)). In accordance with the terms of a negotiated disposition, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation. He challenged three conditions of his probation. The court of appeal struck the sex offender management program Fifth Amendment waiver (statutorily required under section 1203.067(b)(3)), noting that the condition is currently on review by the California Supreme Court. Binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent holds that a probationer cannot be compelled to relinquish his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and, the court of appeal stated, also makes clear the choice between agreeing to the mandatory Fifth Amendment waiver as a condition of probation or facing immediate incarceration is an impermissibly coercive one. The polygraph requirement, without the compelled Fifth Amendment waiver, is valid. The court also called for modification of conditions relating to contact with minors, residency, and location, noting that the Attorney General largely agreed they should be modified. View "People v. Forney" on Justia Law

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked Branden Lee Hall's driver's license because, after being arrested for driving under the influence, he refused to submit to a chemical test for blood alcohol content. Hall filed a petition for a writ of mandate or review (petition) seeking an order directing the DMV to vacate the revocation on the grounds there was no admissible evidence that police properly admonished him that refusing to submit to a blood alcohol test would result in his license being revoked. While Hall's petition was pending, the DMV hearing officer who upheld the revocation, Alva Benavidez, pleaded guilty in federal court to taking bribes in exchange for giving favorable treatment to persons arrested for driving under the influence. Hall amended his petition to allege Benavidez's corruption deprived him of his due process right to a fair hearing. The DMV filed opposition, asserting there was no evidence Benavidez was actually biased in deciding Hall's case. The superior court granted Hall relief by remanding to the DMV for a new hearing, stating Benavidez's "criminal conduct while acting as a hearing officer for the DMV . . . raises a red flag with respect to all hearings presided by her." Unsatisfied with a new hearing, Hall appealed, contending Vehicle Code section 13559 required the court to order the DMV to reinstate his driver's license. Hall also contends there was no admissible evidence that police properly admonished him that refusing a blood alcohol test would result in revocation of his driver's license. Additionally, Hall again argues Benavidez's bribe-taking in other cases deprived him of his due process right to a fair DMV hearing. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court correctly ordered a new administrative hearing. The Court rejected Hall's contention that section 13559 compelled reinstatement of his driver's license in this case. Furthermore, the Court declined to reach the issue of whether police properly admonished Hall about the consequences of refusing a blood alcohol test. View "Hall v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Harquan Johnson and KeAndre Windfield of first degree murder, during which they personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death, and a principal personally discharged a firearm causing death. The jury also convicted defendants of attempted premeditated and deliberate murder, during which they personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury, and a principal used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. As to both offenses, the jury found that defendants committed them for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The jury also convicted defendants of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, during which they personally used a firearm and which they committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Both were sentenced to prison for 90 years to life. They appealed, claiming the preliminary hearing testimony of a prosecution witness should not have been admitted into evidence at trial, the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions of attempted murder, and the jury was misinstructed. Defendants also claim that the firearm allegation findings as to the attempted murder must be stricken. In its original opinion (dated August 19, 2014), the Court of Appeal agreed in part and directed that the jury’s true findings that the defendants personally used a firearm or personally and intentionally discharged a firearm to be stricken. Both defendants had asserted that the abstracts of judgment should be corrected and Court directed the trial court to correct Windfield’s, and, upon the resentencing of Johnson, to ensure that his abstract and the minutes of the hearing correctly reflected the year the crimes were committed and the award of pretrial custody credit. Each defendant claimed that the sentence imposed upon him, without consideration of his individual characteristics, is a violation of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court of Appeal disagreed as to Windfield, but agreed as to Johnson. Therefore, Windfield’s judgment was affirmed except as to corrections the trial court was directed to make. As to Johnson, the Court affirmed his convictions and remanded to the sentencing court for consideration of the factors as set forth in "California v. Gutierrez," (58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014)). Then the California Supreme Court denied both defendants’ petitions for review, but, on its own motion, issued a grant-and-hold of review as to Johnson, for consideration pending review in "In re Alatriste," (S214652), "In re Bonilla," (S214960), and "California v. Franklin," (S217699). On May 26, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in "Franklin" (63 Cal.4th 261 (2016). The Supreme Court then retransferred this case to the Court of Appeals with directions to vacate its opinion and to reconsider the juvenile sentencing issue in light of "Franklin." Pursuant to that order, the Court of Appeals vacated its original opinion; reaffirmed those portions of its original opinion pertaining to issues not subject to the grant and hold, modify its holding of Windfield’s cruel and unusual punishment issue, and reconsidered Johnson’s sentencing claim in light of "Franklin." View "California v. Windfield" on Justia Law

In February 2014, a jury found defendant Kenneth Davis guilty of two 2010 misdemeanors, diverting the natural course of a stream and petty theft (of water). It also found him guilty of a trespass injuring wood or timber in 2010 in another case (which was consolidated solely for purposes of trial) that involved a road he had bulldozed across neighboring property to his own. The court placed him on a three-year period of informal probation, conditioned on a 90-day jail term. Defendant appealed his conviction of petty theft of water, arguing there could not be a theft in this case as a matter of law because the natural stream at issue was nuisance groundwater that the owner was diverting from its property, and the State of California had only a regulatory interest in use of these public waters that otherwise were not personalty that can be the subject of a larceny. The Court of Appeal agreed that there could not be a simple larceny of uncaptured flowing water. The Court reversed and remanded for dismissal of that count. View "California v. Davis" on Justia Law