Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Luke Garlinger robbed a motel clerk at gunpoint and threatened to shoot her if she did not comply with his demands. He was convicted by jury of second degree robbery and making a criminal threat, and also found to have personally used a firearm during the commission of the crimes. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate determinate term of 13 years in state prison and imposed other orders. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failing to object to expert testimony concerning the general location of defendant’s cell phone in relation to various cell towers to which that phone connected during the hours before and after the robbery, arguing the testimony was inadmissible under the "Kelly" standard and Evidence Code sections 801 and 802; and (2) the trial court’s erred in its determination, after conducting an in camera review of a certain detective’s personnel files, that the files contained no discoverable material. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of appeal concluded that the expert’s testimony was not rendered inadmissible by sections 801 and 802. Thus, defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection to the evidence. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the personnel files contained no discoverable material. View "California v. Garlinger" on Justia Law

The trial court granted anti-SLAPP motions, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, against a city‘s exclusive agent in its action for breach of, and interference with, the agency contract and related causes of action. The court concluded that the alleged wrongful conduct in plaintiffs‘ tortious breach of contract cause of action is the City‘s violation of the terms of the Exclusive Agency Agreement (EAA) by allowing someone other than Rand Resources to act as its agent with respect to efforts to bring an NFL franchise to the City. Thus, the cause of action is not premised upon protected free speech or the right to petition for redress of grievances. The alleged wrongful conduct in plaintiffs‘ promissory fraud cause of action is the false representation regarding renewal of the EAA. Although the basis of the cause of action is a statement, the gravamen of the cause of action is the manner in which the City conducted itself in relation to the business transaction between it and Rand Resources, not the City‘s exercise of free speech or petitioning activity. The gravamen of the fourth cause of action with respect to the City is the City‘s violation of the terms of the EAA and the manner in which the City conducted itself in relation to the business transaction between it and Rand Resources, not the City‘s exercise of free speech or petitioning activity. The alleged wrongful conduct at the heart of plaintiffs‘ interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage causes of action is again the Bloom defendants‘ efforts to usurp Rand Resources‘s rights and role under the EAA. As addressed with respect to the fourth cause of action, this conduct arises from the Bloom defendants‘ private conduct of their own business, not their free speech or petitioning activities. Accordingly, the court reversed the order granting the anti-SLAPP motions and reversed the award of attorney fees. View "Rand Resources LLC v. City of Carson" on Justia Law

Police stopped Delconte’s vehicle, in which Nice was a passenger, for failing to signal before a turn and for speeding. Both appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant. Nice admitted upon questioning that they had used methamphetamine the night before and the drugs might be in a bag in the car. They were taken into custody. A bag on the backseat contained substances found to be methamphetamine and cocaine in baggies apparently packaged for sale; ketamine, ground Dimethyltryptamine, Viagra, Cialis, Adderall, Oxycodone tablets; and a collapsible baton and two firearms, one of which was loaded. The police later conducted a search, pursuant to a warrant, of property leased by Delconte, finding additional firearms and narcotics. The court denied a motion to suppress. Defendants each entered into a negotiated plea agreement. The court suspended imposition of Nice’s sentence and granted three years of supervised probation, including one year in county jail. The court denied Delconte probation and imposed a term of six years in state prison. The court of appeal upheld denial of the motion to suppress, stating that the officer’s visual estimate of defendants’ speed as he also was moving was sufficiently grounded in objective facts to constitute reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was speeding, but modified conditions of Nice’s sentence. View "People v. Nice" on Justia Law

While repeatedly shouting “Nortes” or “Nortenos,” defendants Salvador Benjamin Vasquez, Jr., Jose Antonio Duran, and Joseph Vincent Sisneros violently assaulted and robbed a stranger in a business parking lot and then threatened or attacked several employees who witnessed the beating and called police. They were tried jointly and were each convicted of multiple offenses with related enhancements. Defendants raised numerous purported errors on appeal, namely errors pertaining to the conduct of trial, the charging of the jury and insufficient evidence. Finding no merit to these challenges, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

California’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (OPPA), under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et. seq.), addresses the obligations of an operator of a commercial Web site or online service regarding the posting of a privacy policy on the Internet. The state sought damages and injunctive relief under OPPA, alleging that Delta’s Fly Delta mobile application violated the privacy policy requirements. The trial court dismissed, finding the suit expressly preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 U.S.C. 41713 (b)(1)). The court of appeal affirmed. To compel Delta to comply with the OPPA would effectively interfere with the airline’s “selection and design” of its mobile application, a marketing mechanism “appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation service,” for which state enforcement has been held to be expressly preempted. View "Harris v. Delta Air Lines" on Justia Law

Deandre Ellison was shot to death as he drove into his driveway in the Del Paso Heights neighborhood of Sacramento. Four other men, including Latrele Neal, were also in Ellison’s car. Before the car came to a stop in the driveway, an SUV driven by Jesse Cornejo slowly drove past Ellison’s house, and passengers Adam Cornejo and Isaac Vasquez, opened fire on Ellison’s car. Neal managed to return fire with Ellison’s gun before the SUV drove away. After crashing the SUV while being pursued by law enforcement, Adam, Jesse, and Isaac were taken into custody a short time later. Each was a Norteno gang member. Isaac was 16 years old with a developmental disability; Adam and Jesse were 17 and 18 years old, respectively. Adam, Jesse, and Isaac were tried together and convicted by jury of one count of second-degree murder, four counts of attempted murder, and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. Jesse was also convicted of one count of driving in willful or wanton disregard for safety while fleeing from a pursuing peace officer. Various firearm enhancement allegations were also found to be true. And the jury found the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The trial court sentenced Adam and Isaac to serve an aggregate indeterminate prison term of 120 years to life plus a consecutive determinate term of 9 years 4 months. Jesse was sentenced to serve the same indeterminate term of 120 years to life plus a consecutive determinate term of 10 years. Defendants appealed. During the pendency of this appeal, the California Supreme Court decided "California v. Prunty," (62 Cal.4th 59 (2015)), squarely addressing defendants' first argunement on appeal, that there was insufficient to establish the “criminal street gang” requirement of the gang enhancements because there was no evidence Sacramento Norteño subsets were part of the larger Norteño organization. Because each defendant was found to qualify for vicarious firearm enhancements the Court of Appeal felt reversal of these vicarious firearm enhancements as to all defendants was also warranted. The Court rejected defendants' remaining arguments on appeal ,and remanded this case for resentencing. View "California v. Cornejo" on Justia Law

Sergeant Deras stopped defendant for speeding, then determined there were no warrants outstanding, defendant’s license was valid, and he was not on probation or parole. Defendant was registered as a sex offender. Deras testified that, days earlier, another officer gave him information that led Deras to infer that defendant might not actually live at his registered address. While Deras was trying to call that officer, Detective Richmond called and told Deras to “hang on” to defendant because of information from a “validated confidential informant” that defendant was selling narcotics and firearms. While Deras waited for backup, a civilian ride-along stated that he had seen defendant make what Deras believed was a “furtive move.” Backup arrived. Defendant consented to a search of his pockets. Officers found an object consistent with the size and texture of crack cocaine. Officers placed defendant in handcuffs. After Deras determined the object was a diamond, defendant, still handcuffed, “took a moment” and consented to a car search. Officers found baggies, an electronic scale, and methamphetamine. They obtained a warrant for defendant’s residence, where they found a gun and ammunition. The court of appeal reversed denial of a motion to suppress. Officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the duration of the traffic stop, but defendant did not give valid consent for the car search; officer lacked probable cause to keep him under arrest when they requested his consent. View "People v. Espino" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Smith appealed the summary denial of his Proposition 47 resentencing petition. Using the Superior Court’s standard petitioning form, Smith sought to have two felony second degree commercial burglary convictions (counts 1, 2) designated as misdemeanor shoplifting because “[t]he value of the check or property does not exceed $950.00.” The State responded, also using the standard form, by checking the box conceding Smith “is entitled to resentencing” and requesting a hearing to determine “[r]e-sentencing on Ct 2.” The State did not contest the value of the loss in count 1, but did check the box requesting a hearing because the “People do not believe count one is eligible as [the victim] is not a commercial establishment,” which is a required element of shoplifting. The superior court agreed the victim in count 1 was not a commercial establishment and denied relief, and also summarily denied Smith’s petition as to count 2 without explanation. On appeal, Smith argued the victim check exchange business was a commercial establishment and there was otherwise insufficient evidence to support the court’s denial of his petition as to counts 1 and 2. The Court of Appeal agreed, and reversed the superior court’s ruling with directions to either summarily grant his petition or hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve any material factual issues revealed by the superior court’s review of the record of conviction. View "California v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant Allen Silva plead no contest to a number of felony offenses and one misdemeanor petty theft charged in connection with two separate events. The parties agreed to a maximum sentence of six years eight months. The trial court sentenced defendant to the negotiated term of six years eight months on the felonies, but added a consecutive sentence of 30 days on the misdemeanor petty theft, which the trial court subtracted from defendant’s presentence custody credits. Defendant contended the trial court did not properly advise him he could withdraw his plea if the court was inclined to impose a higher sentence than the agreed maximum and contends the error required specific performance of the plea. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that neither the trial court nor the Judicial Council plea form used in this case properly advised defendant of his right to withdraw his plea as required by Penal Code section 1192.5. However, specific performance was not the appropriate remedy in this case. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "California v. Silva" on Justia Law

In 1997, Jason Berg was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for committing a first degree murder with special circumstances when he was 17 years old. In 2014, Berg petition for habeas relief pursuant to "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012)). The habeas court granted the petition. The State appealed, arguing that "Miller" did not apply retroactively. If Miller could be applied retroactively, the State argued alternatively that the sentencing court complied with Miller by considering "youth-oriented factors" before imposing an LWOP sentence. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the habeas court and affirmed the order granting relief. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "California v. Berg" on Justia Law