Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Charles Steele pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine and admitted a prior strike allegation after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence. The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison, consistent with his plea agreement. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Here, sheriff’s deputies pulled their patrol car behind two vehicles parking at night on a driveway out of sight from a nearby highway. The two vehicles included a lead vehicle and a second vehicle driven by defendant. The deputies activated their emergency lights to investigate a felony arrest warrant for the registered owner of the lead vehicle. Defendant argued the sheriff’s deputies detained him without reasonable suspicion, requiring suppression of the evidence regarding the controlled substances discovered in his vehicle. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err: sheriff’s deputies detained defendant, but officer safety justified the detention to assure that defendant did not present a danger to the sheriff’s deputies while they approached and investigated the lead vehicle. View "California v. Steele" on Justia Law

Defendants Marquon Deanthony Vasquez and Shoreen Dominique Bryant were tried together in front of separate juries for murder and attempted murder with allegations these crimes were committed for the benefit of a street gang. These charges arose from the 2013 shooting death of Deandra Horton and wounding of Tionee Duncan. Bryant had driven Vasquez to where the shooting took place and was also the getaway driver. The shooting was retaliation for an altercation between Vasquez’s cousin (Kaveon Plummer-Lee) and one of Duncan’s friends (Marcus Lebeau). Bryant, Vasquez, and Plummer-Lee were members of the North Highlands Gangster Crips. Lebeau was a member of the rival Bloods. The first jury found Vasquez guilty of second degree murder (a lesser to the charged first degree murder) and attempted voluntary manslaughter (a lesser to the charged attempted murder) and found not true the gang enhancements. The second jury found Bryant guilty as an aider and abettor of both first degree murder and attempted murder and found true the gang enhancements. On appeal, Bryant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions and the gang enhancements, and Vasquez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, the instructions, and his counsel’s performance. Finding no merit in these challenges, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments. View "California v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

While on patrol in his official capacity as a police officer in West Sacramento, defendant Sergio Alvarez induced five women he encountered to provide him sexual favors, often to avoid being taken to jail. A jury convicted defendant of multiple counts of aggravated kidnapping, oral copulation under threat of authority and by duress, and rape under threat of authority and by duress. The jury also sustained kidnapping, residential burglary, and multiple victim sentencing enhancements. He appealed, asserting there was insufficient evidence to support a number of his convictions, and the trial court made various instructional and sentencing errors. The Court of Appeals' opinion in this matter was certified for partial publication, and in the published portions, the Court addressed the limitations on the lawful arrest defense to kidnapping. The Court reversed judgment as to counts 3, 19, 23, 24, and 27. The multiple victim enhancement alleged in association with count 21 was dismissed. Defendant’s sentence on counts 1, 8, 13, and 25, was modified to life with the possibility of parole as to each count. Execution of defendant’s sentence on counts 15 and 16 was stayed. As modified, the judgment was then affirmed. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "California v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Timothy Busch in 1989 of second degree murder of his girlfriend's two-year-old daughter. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison. He was first eligible for parole in 1999. The Board of Parole Hearings (Board) found Busch suitable for parole in 2014 based on his exemplary performance while incarcerated. However, the Governor exercised his constitutional and statutory authority to review the Board's parole grant and reversed the Board's decision concluding Busch's claim of innocence and his explanation for the child's injuries were entirely implausible and the evidence as a whole shows Busch currently posed an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison. Busch filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the Governor's decision. Busch contended the Governor's decision was based upon Busch's failure to admit guilt, and the decision failed to articulate a rational nexus between the circumstances of the crime and his current risk of dangerousness. After review of the record, the Court of Appeal disagreed with Busch's contentions and denied relief. View "In re Busch" on Justia Law

In 2000, defendant Michael Caraballo and a co-defendent Mark Kirksey entered a bank, but left after waiting for about 15 minutes. Police officers were stationed nearby; they had received a tip about defendant’s and Kirksey’s suspicious behavior. Defendant and Kirksey walked side by side toward a vehicle parked between two 6-foot high metal bins. “Kirksey, upon observing police activity, suddenly veered away from defendant, ran between the two metal bins, reached down to his waist, and tossed a . . . handgun on top of one of the bins. Defendant and Kirksey were arrested.” A jury convicted defendant of second degree burglary and found he was armed with a firearm. The court found defendant had suffered two prior strike convictions and sentenced him to prison for 25 years to life for the burglary (pursuant to the Three Strikes law) plus one year for the firearm enhancement. In 2014, defendant petitioned for a recall of his sentence and a new sentencing hearing, alleging that although the jury found he was armed with a firearm, the Court of Appeal stated in a previous case, he was not personally armed with a gun. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that defendant was vicariously armed during the commission of his current offense, he was disqualified from resentencing under Penal Code 1170.126 subdivision (e)(2). View "California v. Caraballo" on Justia Law

One of the cases (consolidated on appeal) was filed by nonprofit associations and guardians ad litem for minor public school students, one adult taxpayer and homeowner and two adult taxpayers and homeowners who are parents of students. The other was filed by nonprofit associations, guardians ad litem, and several California school districts. The California Teachers Association intervened. The suits sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations of violations of sections 1 and 5 of California Constitution article IX. The suits claim that all public school children have a constitutional right to an education of “some quality,” and that the Legislature is currently failing to meet its constitutional duty by employing an irrational educational funding scheme. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal, finding no implied constitutional rights to an education of “some quality” for public school children or minimum level of expenditures for education. The language of the cited constitutional sections do not include qualitative or funding elements that may be judicially enforced by the courts, but leave the difficult and policy-laden questions associated with educational adequacy and funding to the legislative branch. View "Campaign for Quality Educ. v. California" on Justia Law

In April 2009, appellant Sidney Landau was committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for an indeterminate term as a sexually violent predator (SVP). While that appeal was pending, appellant received an annual examination at the hospital. As a result of the examination, the examiner found appellant was still a pedophile, but concluded he was no longer dangerous and that treatment in a less restrictive setting was in appellant’s best interests. Landau then filed a petition in the superior court for his unconditional release. Appellant received a jury trial on his petition. The matter was submitted to the jury late in the afternoon on December 5, 2013. On December 18, 2013, the jury concluded appellant remained an SVP, and the court recommitted appellant to the DSH. Appellant appealed, raising a number of issues. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence and reversed the judgment. View "California v. Landau" on Justia Law

A jury acquitted defendant Bryce Nicholes of attempted murder, but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter (count 2). It also found him guilty of assault with a firearm (count 3), and found true allegations he personally used a firearm and committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 17 years in prison: three years for the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction; ten years for the gang enhancement on that crime; one year for the assault conviction; one year and four months for the firearm enhancement on that crime; and one year and eight months for the gang enhancement on that crime. The trial court also “stayed” a firearm enhancement of four years with respect to the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction based on the imposition of the gang enhancement for that crime. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471, regarding mutual combat or an initial aggressor, without also providing an optional portion of the instruction excusing an initial aggressor from withdrawing from a fight in which the victim of the aggressor’s simple assault responds with a “sudden and deadly” counterattack; or (2) alternatively, he received ineffective assistance of counsel who failed to request this instruction; and (3) there was insufficient evidence that defendant’s Oak Park subset of the Norteno gang qualified as a criminal street gang for purposes of the gang enhancements. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Nicholes" on Justia Law

The victim, Jane Doe, was at a friend’s house drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana and methamphetamine. She had been “high” on methamphetamine for the past three days. Jane Doe left her friend’s house and walked to defendant’s apartment. Defendant was Jane Doe’s uncle. When Jane Doe arrived at defendant’s apartment, she greeted him, ate some food, called a friend, and fell asleep on the couch. She next remembered waking up in a dark bedroom on defendant’s bed, on her side, with defendant behind her. She felt his hand under her shirt and bra, touching her bare breast. Her pants were down below her knees and she felt something inside her vagina. When Jane Doe moved away, she heard defendant say, “It was okay.” She pushed defendant, screamed, ran outside, and went downstairs and knocked on the door of a downstairs neighbor. A jury would find defendant Dario Jimenez guilty of felony sexual penetration of an unconscious person and misdemeanor sexual battery. On appeal, defendant contended the trial court committed prejudicial error in giving CALCRIM Jury Instruction number 105 because it was legally erroneous, lacked evidentiary support, and created a “ ‘permissive inference’ ” and “ ‘false impression’ ” that the victim’s character for truthfulness was good. Disagreeing, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

A jury found Michael Lucero guilty of murder, second degree robbery, and assault with a semi-automatic firearm. The jury also found true an allegation that Lucero committed the murder during the course of a robbery. In addition, with respect to these counts, the jury found true allegations that Lucero personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c). On appeal, Lucero claimed that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the murder charge on the lesser included offenses of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, given the evidence of his voluntary intoxication presented at trial. ). In a published portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly instructed the jury that it could not consider Lucero's voluntary intoxication for purposes of determining the truth of these firearm enhancement allegations. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that any error in failing to instruct on second degree murder was harmless and that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Lucero also claimed that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could not consider evidence of Lucero's voluntary intoxication in determining whether he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c). Additionally (unpublished), the Court directed the trial court to correct an error in the abstract of judgment. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was affirmed, but the matter remanded to the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment. View "California v. Lucero" on Justia Law