Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A firearm was discovered at the minor’s school. School administrators suspected his involvement, and in the course of questioning him, they seized and searched the minor’s cell phone. Interspersed with the text messages on the phone were a number of digital images, including a photograph of the minor holding what appeared to be the firearm found on campus. When the prosecution sought to use these images as evidence in the proceeding below, the minor unsuccessfully moved to suppress them. The juvenile court found the minor had possessed an assault weapon, and declared him a ward of the juvenile court (Welfare & Institutions Code 602.1). The court of appeal affirmed in part, finding the search of the cell phone reasonable. Considering all the circumstances, the juvenile court properly found the search was justified at its inception and permissible in scope. The order must be modified to reflect his maximum term of confinement and the matter must be remanded to the juvenile court so that it may calculate the custody credits to which he is entitled. View "In re Rafael C." on Justia Law

Defendant Wade Bush appealed an order denying his petition to reduce to misdemeanors his felony convictions for theft from an elder and receiving stolen property pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. The trial court denied defendant’s petition on the ground he was not eligible for relief under Proposition 47 due to the nature of his convictions. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his petition without stating the reasons for doing so or specifying the materials relied upon in making its determination. Defendant further argues remand is required because the amount of the stolen property, which was determinative of eligibility for resentencing, is not readily evident from the record. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the record on appeal did not support the trial court’s finding of non-eligibility for resentencing because of the nature of those crimes. Furthermore, because the trial court did not state its reasoning for concluding the crimes alleged in counts 12, 14, and 15 were not eligible for resentencing and the record did not support the trial court’s ineligibility finding, the trial court’s ruling denying defendant’s resentencing petition was reversed and remanded for reconsideration of defendant’s petition solely as to counts 12, 14, and 15. The judgment was affirmed as to the trial court’s denial of defendant’s resentencing petition as to counts 2 and 23. View "California v. Bush" on Justia Law

Petitioner California Cannabis Coalition, a California nonprofit corporation, and Nicole De La Rosa and James Velez (collectively, CCC), appealed after a trial court denied CCC’s petition for writ of mandate. CCC’s writ petition requested the trial court to order the City of Upland and city clerk, Stephanie Mendenhall, (collectively, the City) to hold a special election on CCC’s medical marijuana dispensary initiative (Initiative). CCC argued the trial court erred in ruling CCC’s Initiative could not be voted on during a special election under Article XIIIC (Article 13C), section 2 of the California Constitution, because the Initiative imposes a charge on medical marijuana dispensaries, which in effect was a general tax rather than a regulatory fee. CCC objected to the trial court requiring the Initiative to be placed on the next general election ballot, instead of presenting it to the voters earlier by holding a special election. CCC further argued the City council prematurely determined, before the election on the Initiative, that the Initiative constituted a tax rather than a regulatory fee. CCC sought a writ of mandate to compel the City to hold a special election on the Initiative. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Article 13C, section 2 did not apply to CCC’s Initiative. "Article 13C, sections 1 and 2 refer to taxes imposed by local government. Article 13C is silent as to taxes imposed by initiative. Article 2, sections 8 and 11 of the California Constitution and Elections Code sections 1405 and 9214, on the other hand, provide the people with initiative powers and state procedures for holding elections on initiatives." The Court therefore denied the writ petition. View "CA Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland" on Justia Law

Petitioner California Cannabis Coalition, a California nonprofit corporation, and Nicole De La Rosa and James Velez (collectively, CCC), appealed after a trial court denied CCC’s petition for writ of mandate. CCC’s writ petition requested the trial court to order the City of Upland and city clerk, Stephanie Mendenhall, (collectively, the City) to hold a special election on CCC’s medical marijuana dispensary initiative (Initiative). CCC argued the trial court erred in ruling CCC’s Initiative could not be voted on during a special election under Article XIIIC (Article 13C), section 2 of the California Constitution, because the Initiative imposes a charge on medical marijuana dispensaries, which in effect was a general tax rather than a regulatory fee. CCC objected to the trial court requiring the Initiative to be placed on the next general election ballot, instead of presenting it to the voters earlier by holding a special election. CCC further argued the City council prematurely determined, before the election on the Initiative, that the Initiative constituted a tax rather than a regulatory fee. CCC sought a writ of mandate to compel the City to hold a special election on the Initiative. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Article 13C, section 2 did not apply to CCC’s Initiative. "Article 13C, sections 1 and 2 refer to taxes imposed by local government. Article 13C is silent as to taxes imposed by initiative. Article 2, sections 8 and 11 of the California Constitution and Elections Code sections 1405 and 9214, on the other hand, provide the people with initiative powers and state procedures for holding elections on initiatives." The Court therefore denied the writ petition. View "CA Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland" on Justia Law

Defendant Ronald Myers appealed the denial of his petition to resentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36) based on a finding that resentencing him would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. A jury convicted defendant of the felony of possession by a felon of ammunition, and two misdemeanors: assault and possession of a syringe. The trial court found he had served a prior prison term and had four strikes. He was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life plus one year, with concurrent misdemeanor terms. The Court of Appeal affirmed. On appeal, Myers argued the trial court used the wrong standards to determine whether he posed a risk of danger, the trial court abused its discretion in making such finding, and he was entitled to have a jury, not a trial judge, make such finding. Disagreeing, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Myers" on Justia Law

This case arose out of two separate incidents. In the first, defendant Anthony Medina was driving with defendants Brandon Morton and David Whitehead in the back seat, and fired a gun at a black Lexus, hitting its two occupants. Medina was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. In the second incident, Morton believed he had been “shorted” several grams of methamphetamine in a drug sale. Morton, with Medina and Whitehead, met with the woman who had made the sale. She was accompanied by her boyfriend Jason Fletcher and another man. Morton shot and killed Fletcher. All three defendants were convicted of first degree murder with a robbery special circumstance and attempted robbery. Sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP), they appealed, raising a myriad of contentions including insufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary errors, and instructional error. This case returned to the Court of Appeal on remand for reconsideration of this case in light of "California v. Banks," (61 Cal.4th 788 (2015)), which articulated the standards to apply in determining whether an accomplice who lacked the intent to kill may qualify as a major participant for purposes of the felony-murder special circumstance. On further consideration, the Court of Appeal modified its earlier opinion. The Court agreed with defendants’ contentions relating to presentence custody credit and Whitehead’s request for correction of his abstract of judgment. The Court modified the judgments to award presentence custody credit and to correct unauthorized sentences, and ordered corrections and amendments to the abstracts of judgment. View "California v. Medina" on Justia Law

On June 28, 2014, defendant Manuel Valencia went into an AT&T store and purchased a prepaid phone for $249.74 with counterfeit $50 bills. When defendant was later contacted by the employee who sold him the phone, he admitted that the bills he tendered were counterfeit. Defendant was charged with second degree burglary and forgery along with two prior prison term allegations. He pleaded guilty to second degree burglary and was sentenced to an eight-month county prison term, to be served consecutively to a nine-year term imposed in unrelated cases. Defendant subsequently filed a Penal Code section 1170.18 petition for resentencing, seeking a reduction of the second degree burglary conviction to a misdemeanor. The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant was not eligible for relief because his criminal activity did not constitute shoplifting. He argued on appeal to the Court of Appeal that the trial court erred in finding his conviction for second degree burglary was ineligible for resentencing. The Court agreed: since defendant’s criminal conduct in purchasing a prepaid phone with counterfeit bills could not be prosecuted as a burglary had Proposition 47 (approved Nov. 4, 2014) been in effect, he was eligible for relief under section 1170.18. The Court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for additional proceedings on defendant’s petition. View "California v. Valencia" on Justia Law

Defendant, age 43, met Doe, age 16, through social media. Doe claims that they maintained a consensual relationship that involved kissing and sleeping together, but no further sexual conduct, until Doe stayed at defendant’s residence. Defendant and two male friends forced Doe to orally copulate them. Doe left and called the police. After he expressed suicidal thoughts, Doe was taken into custody. Days later, he made a slightly different statement. The prosecution charged defendant with oral copulation with a minor. (Pen. Code, 288a(b)(1).) Defendant pleaded no contest to false imprisonment by means of deceit (Pen. Code 236, 237(a)) in exchange for dismissal of the oral copulation count. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted three years' probation to include a jail sentence of 236 days. The court imposed probation conditions that “Any computers and all other electronic devices belonging to the defendant … shall be subject to forensic analysis search for material prohibited by law. You shall not clean or delete internet browsing activity on any electronic device that you own and you must keep a minimum of four weeks of history.” The court of appeal found the condition allowing for searches unconstitutionally overbroad as worded, but upheld the condition requiring defendant not to delete his browser activity. View "People v. Appleton" on Justia Law

Lamar filed suit challenging the City's denial of 45 applications to convert existing offsite signs - billboards with commercial messages in locations other than at a property owner's business - to digital signs. Lamar alleged that the sign ban violates the free speech clause of the California Constitution and the trial court agreed, granting a writ of mandate. The trial court concluded that the sign ban was a content-based regulation that could not withstand strict scrutiny analysis. After addressing preliminary issues, this court concluded on the merits that the city's offsite sign ban is not content-based, and therefore is not subject to strict scrutiny or heightened scrutiny under high court or California Supreme Court precedent. Consistent with the many authorities finding no constitutional infirmity under the First Amendment in the distinction between offsite and onsite signs, the court reached a like conclusion under the free speech clause of the California Constitution. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to issue an order denying plaintiff‟s petition for a writ of mandate. View "Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

In two cases consolidated for oral argument and decision, the Court of Appeal was faced with a facial constitutional challenge: whether the statute allowing withholding of sales and use tax revenues and property tax revenues violated Proposition 22 (2010), which prohibited the state from reallocating, transferring, or otherwise using revenues from taxes imposed or levied by a local government solely for the local government’s purposes. Under the redevelopment dissolution law, the Legislature directed that a dissolved redevelopment agency’s funds not needed to meet enforceable obligations must be turned over to the county’s auditor-controller for distribution to local taxing entities. After the California Supreme Court found that dissolving the redevelopment agencies was an appropriate exercise of the Legislature’s constitutional power, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1484 providing what to do if the successor agency or sponsoring agency of the former redevelopment agency did not turn over those funds to the county’s auditor-controller. One method of enforcing the turnover was for the Board of Equalization to withhold sales and use tax revenues to which the sponsoring agency was entitled, and another was for the county auditor-controller to withhold property tax revenues to which the sponsoring agency is entitled. The Court of Appeal concluded that the statutes were unconstitutional to the extent they allowed the state to reallocate, transfer, or otherwise use tax revenue belonging to the local government. View "City of Bellflower v. Cohen" on Justia Law