Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Christopher Triplett appealed the partial denial of his petition to recall his sentence and reduce certain felonies to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. He argued his two convictions for second degree burglary should have been reduced to misdemeanors and the trial court erred in relying on facts outside the record and misunderstood the law. He further argued for the first time on appeal, that two of his one-year prior prison term enhancements should have been stricken. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that in determining a defendant's eligibility for resentencing under the Act, the trial court could consider, in addition to the record of conviction, any facts the parties clearly agreed to, as long as such facts only augmented, and did not contradict or otherwise detract from, the record of conviction. Here, considering the additional facts agreed to by the parties, the Court found defendant established eligibility for resentencing as to one of his two second degree burglary convictions. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court's order declining to find eligibility as to this prior conviction, and remanded for additional proceedings. The Court declined to strike defendant's prior prison term enhancements, because the Act did not apply retroactively. View "California v. Triplett" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendants Jerry Ramirez and Catherine Rodriguez Villarreal of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The jury found them both not guilty of active participation in the Surenos, an alleged criminal street gang, and the jury rejected gang sentencing enhancement allegations that the attempted murder and the assault were committed for the benefit of the Surenos. Defendants appealed their convictions, arguing the trial court erroneously denied their motion to set aside the gang participation charges and the gang enhancement allegations under Penal Code section 9951 and, as a result, irrelevant but highly inflammatory gang evidence was admitted which deprived them of their due process rights to a fair trial on the attempted murder and assault charges. The Court of Appeal reviewed the case and concluded that the preliminary hearing evidence did not support the gang participation charges or the gang enhancement allegations, so the 995 motion should have been granted. The Court also determined the gang evidence erroneously admitted at trial violated defendants’ due process rights and resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial. Therefore, the judgment was reversed. Any other arguments defendants made was mooted by this reversal. View "California v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Laura Valenzuela was convicted of carjacking, reckless evasion of a peace officer, and possession of methamphetamine. Valenzuela waived a jury trial on two alleged prison priors. The trial court found one alleged prison prior true and the other not true. The court sentenced Valenzuela to a total term of six years eight months in prison, consisting of the middle term of five years on count 1, eight months (one-third the middle term) on count 2, one year for the prison prior conviction, and the middle term of two years, concurrent, on count 3. On appeal, Valenzuela argued that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to ask her whether she had a prior conviction for reckless evasion. Valenzuela also asserts that Proposition 47 required the Court of Appeal to reduce count 3 to a misdemeanor and strike the one-year sentence enhancement imposed for her prison prior. After review, the Court rejected Valenzuela's contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Valenzuela" on Justia Law

Defendant David Ewing, Jr. and three others were involved in a drug deal gone bad: the victim was shot but survived, and defendant and his cohorts were caught trying to escape. Defendant was convicted of multiple offenses and various enhancements, including, including that he shot at an occupied vehicle for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. On appeal, defendant argued insufficient evidence supported the gang enhancement and that the State's gang expert improperly testified that defendant committed the crimes in order to promote or further a criminal street gang. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Ewing" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging claims of negligence, fraud, breach of contract, common counts, and exemplary damages. On appeal, plaintiff challenged an order granting a special motion to strike her complaint by respondent, an attorney, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP motion). As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that respondent's motion was timely. On the merits, the court concluded that the allegations against respondent arose from protected speech - they occurred within the context of anticipated litigation and settlement - and plaintiff failed to include with her response any evidence suggesting that she had a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claims. Further, the trial court did not violate plaintiff's rights by failing to provide her with a copy of the tentative ruling on the day of the hearing. Finally, the exception set forth in section 425.17, subdivision (c) is inapplicable and respondent's alleged actions were not illegal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Karnazes v. Ares" on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants AMG Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (AMG), and others, appealed an order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff-respondent City of Corona (the City), requiring defendants to cease using and immediately remove a billboard, or outdoor advertising sign, that AMG erected in the City without a city or state permit. Defendants claimed the City was enforcing Ordinance No. 2729 against them in an impermissibly discriminatory manner, because the City has allowed another billboard operator, Lamar Advertising Company, to erect new billboards in the City, after the 2004 ordinance was enacted, while denying them the right to do so. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded AMG's claim was unsupported by any evidence in the record, and belied by the City’s evidence. Defendants also claimed the 2004 ordinance violated their equal protection rights, was an invalid prior restraint, and violated their free speech rights under the California Constitution. The Court found no constitutional violation or other error, and affirmed the order granting the preliminary injunction. View "City of Corona v. AMG Outdoor Advertising" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Clayton Perkins was charged with one felony count of receiving stolen property, three felony counts of grand theft of a firearm, two felony counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale, two felony counts of burglary, three misdemeanor counts of resisting a peace officer, and one misdemeanor count of using a controlled substance. After a jury found defendant guilty on all counts, he admitted to a prison prior, a serious felony prior, and a serious or violent prior, and the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 20 years 8 months in state prison. The trial court sentenced defendant to eight months in state prison on the receiving stolen property count, running consecutively to the sentences imposed on the burglary and possession of methamphetamine for sale counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years for each grand theft of a firearm count and stayed those sentences under section 654 because they arose out of the same events as the principal first degree burglary offense. Defendant appealed his conviction, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. California voters later passed Proposition 47, which converted receipt of stolen property and grand theft of a firearm into misdemeanors where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950. Defendant filed a form to request resentencing, but the form mistakenly excluded the option of petitioning for resentencing grand theft offenses. As a result, and contrary to his intention, Perkins’s petition asked for resentencing on the receiving stolen property conviction alone. Defendant’s petition stated the requirements for eligibility for resentencing on that conviction, but attached no evidence, included no declaration, and provided no record citations to support the factual assertion that the stolen property did not exceed $950 in value. The superior court denied the petition without holding a hearing on the ground that the value of the stolen property exceeded $950. The order did not mention the convictions for grand theft of firearms. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the superior court erred in denying his petition for resentencing on the receipt of stolen property conviction because its finding that the value of the stolen property exceeded $950 was not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the superior court erred in failing to consider the petition for resentencing on defendant’s three convictions for grand theft of a firearm. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the petition for resentencing on the receiving stolen property conviction because defendant did not carry his burden to submit evidence of the value of the stolen property. The Court did not reach the putative petition for resentencing on the grand theft of firearms convictions because defendant did not properly request resentencing on those convictions. The Court concluded, however, that defendant could file new petitions on his convictions for both the receipt of stolen property offense and the theft of firearms offenses. View "California v. Perkins" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Gloria Ramos guilty of multiple crimes, including transportation of heroin, and possession of methamphetamine for sale, both with various firearm enhancements. The court granted probation and ordered defendant to serve 365 days in jail. Defendant argued on appeal of her convictions that her transportation of heroin conviction should have been reversed, and not retried, in light of a recent amendment to Health & Saf. Code section 11352 that made transportation for sale (i.e., non-personal use) an element of the charge. The State conceded the amendment applied, but argued the conviction should nevertheless be affirmed under the harmless error standard of review. Alternatively, the State contended retrial on the transportation of heroin charge was not barred by the double jeopardy clause. Defendant also contends her possession of methamphetamine for sale conviction must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence to prove she harbored any intent to personally sell the methamphetamine. The People disagree and argue there is sufficient evidence defendant possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to sell it. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the transportation of heroin conviction should have been reversed and remanded for further proceedings, but there was substantial evidence defendant possessed the methamphetamine with the requisite intent to sell it, so that conviction was affirmed. View "California v. Ramos" on Justia Law

The State appealed a trial court order sustaining a demurrer to the felony complaint in this case, which contended (as relevant), the complaint failed to provide sufficient notice of its charges in violation of Penal Code sections 950 and 952. The State maintained they met applicable pleading requirements. According to the People, Defendants Sabas Trujillo, Lucia Trujillo, Richard (Rick) Trujillo, Laura Fitzpatrick, and Alex Trujillo (collectively Defendants), owned or were current or former employees of three entities: United Paving, Prestige Striping, and Yeguada Trujillo, Inc. Following earlier pleading challenges, the State filed a 20-count first amended felony complaint in January 2015, alleging Defendants submitted payroll documents that underreported employee wages over a period of years to, among others, two insurance companies, the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and the Employment Development Department, for purposes of reducing insurance premiums and taxes. For each count relating to insurance and tax fraud, the State identified a particular defendant or defendants, business, the statutory provision at issue, the relevant time period (which, according to the State, generally corresponded to an insurance policy term), and the alleged victim. Defendants demurred on statute of limitations grounds, and for failure to conform to the pleading provisions the applicable statutes, contending counts were "vague and uncertain as to the charges alleged." After review of this matter, the Court of Appeal agreed with the State that it met the applicable pleading requirements, and reversed the trial court. View "California v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

Ernest Orozco pled guilty to one count of unlawfully driving a vehicle of another without permission, and one count of receiving a stolen vehicle. After Orozco entered his guilty plea, California voters passed Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014. Orozco filed a petition under Proposition 47 to reduce the felonies to misdemeanors. The trial court denied Orozco's petition, finding Proposition 47 did not apply to section 496d and Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), and sentenced him to one year in prison with mandatory supervision for three years after his release. The trial court stayed the sentence for Orozco's section 496d violation under section 654. Orozco timely appealed the order, arguing the trial court erred in denying his petition to reduce both his felony convictions to misdemeanors under Proposition 47. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Orozco" on Justia Law