Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted defendants James Sweeney II and Patrick Ryan of 65 counts of white-collar crime (all relating to the sale of securities) and found true three special allegations. The court sentenced Sweeney to 33 years and Ryan to 31 years. The court also imposed restitution. On appeal, both defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on count 68 and the convictions on counts 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71, primarily involving multi-level marketing programs. Ryan also claimed various sentencing errors, including those related to fines and restitution.3 Sweeney makes similar arguments. The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence for count 68. The Court also upheld convictions on counts 67 through 71. View "California v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Seven years after appellant Marjorie L. was appointed guardian of her two granddaughters, A.L. and E.L., the trial court granted a petition to terminate the guardianship filed by the minors’ parents, respondents Jennifer L. and Richard L., after a hearing that took only minutes at which no evidence was introduced, no witness testimony was taken, and no arguments from counsel were heard. The Court of Appeal concluded that this truncated process deprived the guardian of any meaningful hearing or opportunity to object to the petition, and prevented the court from fully considering whether termination was in the best interests of the minors. The Court therefore reversed the order terminating the guardianship and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing before a different judge to consider whether termination is in the minors’ best interests. View "Guardianship of A.L." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against John Travolta, Atlo, and others (collectively, "Atlo"), seeking a declaration as to whether a three-page agreement or a four-page agreement was the enforceable termination agreement between the parties, and whether a confidentiality provision, if one exists, is enforceable. Atlo filed an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the first amended complaint under Code Civ. Proc., 425.16. The court held that a declaratory relief action filed in response to an attorney's letters threatening litigation over the contract dispute does not come within the provisions of an anti-SLAPP lawsuit where the lawsuit sought a declaration regarding the terms of plaintiff's termination agreement, not whether Atlo may send demand letters or threaten litigation. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court properly denied the motion to strike the complaint and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Gotterba v. Travolta" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendants-appellants Leopoldo Chavez and Edward Elias of two counts of first degree murder, and found true special circumstances of robbery-murder and multiple murders. The jury further found that Chavez and Elias were armed with a firearm. Following their convictions, the court sentenced Chavez and Elias to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment each, without the possibility of parole, plus an additional consecutive year. The court later recalled the sentences to consider whether to impose a lesser punishment because Chavez and Elias were under the age of 18 at the time of their offenses. After a further hearing, the court declined to modify the sentences. Chavez and Elias appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to convict them of first degree murder or to support the special circumstances findings. Furthermore, they argued: (1) the court erred in instructing the jury using a modified version of CALCRIM No. 376; (2) the court erred by not instructing the jury regarding the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing arguments; (4) the sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because they were juveniles at the time of their offenses; and (5) the court erred by imposing parole revocation fines. The Court of Appeal concluded there was sufficient evidence to support Chavez's and Elias's murder convictions as well as the jury's felony-murder and multiple-murder special circumstances findings. The Court rejected defendants' claims that they were prejudiced by instructional error and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. Because defendants were sentenced before "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S.Ct. 2455) and "People v. Gutierrez" (58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014)) were decided and, because the record did not show that the trial court had the opportunity to directly consider the ultimate issue presented in those cases, the Court of Appeal reversed the life sentences without possibility of parole and remanded for resentencing in light of Miller and Gutierrez. The Court also agreed the trial court erred in imposing parole revocation fines. View "California v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Darrell Chenault appealed his convictions on 13 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age, and two counts of forcible lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age. On appeal, he argued: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of two child witnesses without individualized showings of necessity; and (2) the presence of the support dog was inherently prejudicial and violated his federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to confront the witnesses against him. Because the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the support dog to be present during the testimony of the two child witnesses, it affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Chenault" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Wesley Brown was convicted of possession of a "short-barreled shotgun." Defendant had been found in possession of the weapon in his home. California's statutory definition of "short-barreled shotgun" includes a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long or with an overall length of less than 26 inches, regardless of the length of the barrel. The barrel of defendant's shotgun was one quarter inch longer than the minimum length of 18 inches, but the overall length was 25 and a half inches - too short by half an inch. He appealed, contending the statute, on its face and as applied, violated the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and equal protection. He also claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal due to the insufficiency of evidence, and made instructional errors. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that California's ban on shotguns with an overall length of less than 26 inches did not violate the Second Amendment or equal protection. The Court also rejected defendant's other contentions. View "California v. Brown" on Justia Law

Olive Lane Industrial Park owned real property that was taken by eminent domain. Within four years after the eminent domain order, Olive Lane acquired another parcel of property. About five years after the eminent domain order, for purposes of calculating property taxes on its new property, Olive Lane filed a request with the San Diego County tax assessor to transfer the condemned property's base year value to the replacement property, as permitted by California Constitution, article XIIIA. The County denied Olive Lane's request as untimely. After evaluating the constitutional and statutory provisions as a whole, the Court of Appeal concluded the Legislature did not intend to deprive a taxpayer who loses property through eminent domain of the right to obtain prospective application of the base year value transfer in the event the replacement property is acquired within the four-year statutory period but the claim is filed after the four-year period. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Olive Lake Industrial Park v. Co. of San Diego" on Justia Law

The United States and California Supreme Courts explored the constitutional limits of government’s power to punish minors tried as adults. Responding to these decisions, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 260, adding section 3051 to the Penal Code, which provided minors sentenced to a determinate term of years or a life term an opportunity to prove their rehabilitation and secure release on parole after serving a prescribed term of confinement. Xeng Saetern, who was serving a 100-years-to-life sentence for a murder he committed at age 14, argued on appeal of his sentence that in imposing a sentence that is the functional equivalent of life without possibility of parole, the trial court failed to consider the factors of youth set forth in the Supreme Court cases, and thus he should be resentenced. The question of whether section 3051 had the effect suggested by Saetern was pending before the California Supreme Court; ultimately, Saetern’s arguments and his fate would be resolved by the higher court. "Conscious of the ephemerality of our decision and that we are writing on shifting sands, we conclude that even assuming the trial court’s sentencing process failed to comport with the requirements of Miller, the violation was rendered harmless with the enactment of section 3051, which affords Saetern more favorable relief than the sentencing court could provide." View "California v. Saetern" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Reginald Bradford was convicted by a jury of three counts of second degree burglary and four counts of petty theft with a prior. The offenses were based on incidents in which Bradford took merchandise from various stores. The jury acquitted him of robbery. The trial court found he had five prior felony convictions for which he had served prison terms, including two residential burglaries that were strikes under the three strikes law. Bradford received four consecutive terms of 25 years to life pursuant to the three strikes law, and an additional four years for the enhancements. He appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Following the enactment of Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, Bradford filed a petition to recall the sentence and for resentencing. The trial court denied the petition, finding him ineligible for relief based on a statutory exclusion that applied if a firearm or other deadly weapon was involved in the commission of the underlying charge. The question this case presented on appeal was whether the trial court erred in finding defendant ineligible for resentencing based on evidence he had a pair of wire cutters at or near the time defendant committed the burglaries/thefts. The Court of Appeal found the trial court's conclusion that the wire cutters were a deadly weapon and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "California v. Bradford" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Elder filed what he titled a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to try and recall his 1995 indeterminate life sentence. The statute, enacted pursuant to a November 2012 initiative measure, provides retrospective relief under narrow criteria from indeterminate life sentences imposed for recidivism. Defendant alleged that the crime of which he was convicted (for being a felon unlawfully possessing a gun) was not a "serious" or violent felony and did not otherwise come within any exception to section Penal Code 1170.126, and therefore he was entitled to be considered for resentencing to a determinate sentence of double the term that would otherwise apply to his offense. Treating the filing as a recall petition under the statute, the trial court denied the petition without a hearing, finding defendant did not qualify for relief. Defendant argued on appeal that as a matter of statutory interpretation he could not be armed while committing the crime of unlawful possession of a gun; alternately, he argued that the prosecution had to plead and prove this circumstance in the proceedings underlying his commitment offense. Disagreeing with both claims, the Court of Appeal found the trial court properly concluded that defendant was ineligible for resentencing. View "California v. Elder" on Justia Law