Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed an order granting the petition of defendant Justin Peacock to reduce his felony conviction of a violation of Penal Code section 496d to a misdemeanor. In February 2012, defendant was charged in a felony complaint with receiving a stolen motor vehicle, and charged with allegations that he had suffered a previous conviction of the same offense in April 2010, and had served three prior prison terms. In April 2012, defendant entered into a plea agreement under which he pled no contest to section 496d, subdivision (a). The agreement provided that the prior allegations would be dismissed, and the district attorney would recommend a 16-month sentence to be served at “half time.” Defendant was sentenced consistently with the plea agreement. The State contends that the trial court’s order was in error because it was unauthorized under Penal Code section 1170.18, and any new sentence was unauthorized. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in redesignating defendant’s offense as a misdemeanor, and accordingly reversed the order. View "California v. Peacock" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review was whether a lease-back financing plan the City of San Diego (City) adopted to fund public infrastructure improvements violated state and local requirements that municipal indebtedness exceeding annual income and revenue be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. San Diegans for Open Government (SDOG) argued the court erred by entering judgment against it in this reverse validation action on the ground the debt limitation provisions were inapplicable under "Rider v. City of San Diego" because the bonds would not be issued by the City, but by a separate public entity formed under a joint powers agreement. SDOG argued "Rider" was factually distinguishable from this case in numerous respects, and thus it was inapplicable. After review, the Court of Appeal was unpersuaded by SDOG's arguments, and affirmed the judgment. View "San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate and/or prohibition asking the superior court to vacate its order granting the petition of real party in interest, the District, for a right of entry pursuant to the Eminent Domain Law, Code Civ. Proc., 1245.010 et seq. The superior court permitted the District to conduct certain investigations and environmental testing on petitioner's property. Petitioner argued that the District's actions constitute a taking requiring the District to file a condemnation suit to litigate the need for the taking and to provide petitioner with just compensation. The court concluded, however, that the District's proposed actions, which are temporary and limited intrusions on the property, neither violate the entry statutes nor do they constitute a taking requiring a jury determination of just compensation. Accordingly, the court denied the writ petition. View "Young's Market Co. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Inmate Manuel Martinez filed a habeas corpus petition to challenge a December 2011 decision by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) officials at Pelican Bay to “validate” him as a gang associate of the Mexican Mafia pursuant to former section 3378 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. This validation led to his transfer to Pelican Bay’s Security Housing Unit (SHU) for an indeterminate term. In May 2014, the trial court granted Martinez’s petition, ordering his gang validation expunged and his residency in the SHU based on that validation terminated. Clark Ducart, the Warden of Pelican Bay State Prison, appealed, asking that the Court of Appeal overturn the trial court’s order and deny Martinez’s petition. The warden argued that Martinez’s participation in a prison “disturbance” (Martinez prefers prison “protest”) of Southern Hispanics ordered by a person who was later validated as a Mexican Mafia associate (the Mexican Mafia affiliate) established a direct link. The Court, in affirming the grant of habeas relief, found that the warden’s evidence showed Martinez acted consistent with the order of the Mexican Mafia affiliate, but not that he did so in order to comply with an order from that specific person. The warden did not provide any evidence connecting Martinez to the Mexican Mafia gang affiliate without an intervening step or interruption. Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded there was no evidence of this “direct link” between the two. Martinez should not have been validated as a Mexican Mafia gang associate. View "In re Martinez" on Justia Law

The State and California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Tawney appealed a judgment in which the jury found Tawney violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 by making a constitutionally unreasonable detention and search of plaintiff and Civil Code section 52.1, also known as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Bane Act), by making threats of violence. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the finding that Tawney unreasonably detained plaintiff; the trial court arguably erred by admitting evidence of plaintiff's acquittal of violating Vehicle Code section 27007, but Tawney and the state have failed to establish prejudice; substantial evidence supports the unreasonable search finding; the state and Tawney were not entitled to judgment not withstanding the verdict on the basis of qualified immunity; the trial court did not err by excluding testimony regarding CHP policy; the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding that Tawney violated the Bane Act; and plaintiff's cross-appeal on his Bane Act claim is moot. Accordingly, the court reversed as to the Bane Act cause of action and otherwise affirmed. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

In December 2013, Giovanni Gonzales took two bank checks from his grandmother. He went into a Bank of America twice during regular business hours and cashed the checks. The checks were for $125 each, written payable to Gonzales, and signed with his grandmother's name. Gonzales's grandmother stated she did not sign the checks and Gonzales did not have permission to use her checks. Gonzales pleaded guilty to second degree commercial burglary. The trial court denied Gonzales's petition for recall of his felony sentence. He appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying his petition because: (1) the conduct underlying his offense meets the statutory definition of misdemeanor shoplifting under section 459.5, a crime added in 2014 by Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (the Act); and (2) section 1170.18 impliedly applies to convictions pursuant to section 459. The Court of Appeal rejected Gonzales's arguments and affirmed the order. View "California v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

Defendant Gerardo Villasenor, a Sureno gang member, shot two rival gang members on two separate occasions. With respect to the first shooting, defendant was charged with one count of attempted murder (Count One) and one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (Count Two). With respect to the second shooting, he was charged with one count of attempted murder (Count Four) and one count of shooting from a motor vehicle at another person outside that vehicle (Count Five). Each count alleged a gang enhancement; with the exception of Count Two, each count also alleged defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. After the trial court severed trial on the counts relating to the first shooting (first trial) from trial on the counts relating to the second shooting (second trial), separate juries found defendant guilty and found each enhancement allegation to be true. Defendant was sentenced to serve an aggregate indeterminate prison term of 50 years to life, plus an aggregate determinate prison term of 24 years, eight months. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his federal constitutional rights by admitting into evidence statements defendant made to police after he invoked his right to remain silent. Defendant also argued the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his state and federal constitutional rights in the second trial by denying his request for a removal order for a proposed defense witness, who was an inmate in an out-of-county prison at the time of trial, thereby preventing him from calling a necessary and material witness. Furthermore, he argued the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and a clerical error in the abstract of judgment had to be corrected. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the first two contentions: because defendant’s showing of necessity and materiality was lacking, the trial court neither abused its discretion nor violated defendant’s constitutional rights by denying his request to remove this particular inmate from prison. The evidence was also more than sufficient to support defendant’s convictions and the enhancement findings with respect to each shooting. The Court did, however, agree the abstract of judgment had to be corrected. View "California v. Villasenor" on Justia Law

Defendant Dennis Nilsson, the facilities superintendent for the Sacramento Public Library Authority (Library), was involved in several schemes to receive kickbacks for Library maintenance work provided by outside contractors. One of these schemes included defendant James Earle Mayle, Sr., who was also a Library employee, and defendant Mayle’s wife, defendant Janie Mae Rankins-Mayle, who was not a Library employee. The scheme involving all three defendants resulted in a loss of more than $780,000 to the Library. Defendants were convicted of grand theft, embezzlement, offering or receiving a bribe, and conflict of interest. After review of their arguments on appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that: (1) as to defendants Mayle and Rankins-Mayle, the Court struck an enhancement imposed under Penal Code section 186.11 because the prosecution did not meet the pleading and proof requirement; (2) as to defendant Nilsson, the Court struck one count of grand theft because the law applicable at the time he committed his crimes permitted only one grand theft conviction for multiple takings done pursuant to a single overarching scheme; and (3) as to defendant Nilsson, the trial court had to properly indicate in the abstract of judgment what restitution was subject to joint and several liability. Finding no other prejudicial error, the Court made these modifications to the convictions, affirmed the convictions as modified, reversed the sentence, and remanded for resentencing and preparation of amended abstracts of judgment. View "California v. Nilsson" on Justia Law

The City appealed the trial court's order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the second trial of plaintiff’s employment claims. The court concluded that the City had a viable statute of limitations defense; accepting as true that the events in the 1990's show race harassment and retaliation for complaining about discrimination and harassment, these events are insufficient as a matter of law to show a continuing course of conduct; there is no substantial evidence to support a claim of disparate impact race discrimination within the limitations period; there is no substantial evidence to support a claim of racial harassment within the limitations period; there is no substantial evidence to support a claim of retaliation for plaintiff's complaints about race discrimination or harassment within the limitations period; and the claim of failure to prevent race discrimination, retaliation, and harassment also fails. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the City. View "Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Thornton Garness pleaded guilty to a single felony count of receiving a stolen motor vehicle. Subsequently, California voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which among other things established a procedure for specified classes of offenders to have their felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors and be resentenced accordingly. In this appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47. He argued the trial court erred by determining he was not eligible for relief. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Garness" on Justia Law