Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The City of Los Angeles implemented the recycLA program in 2017, establishing exclusive franchise agreements with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services for commercial and multi-unit residential properties. Under these agreements, haulers paid the City a percentage of their gross receipts as a franchise fee. Several property owners and tenants who paid for waste hauling services under this system filed a consolidated class action against the City, alleging that the franchise fees were actually an unlawful tax imposed without voter approval, in violation of Proposition 218 and related constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs sought refunds of the alleged illegal taxes and declaratory relief regarding the validity of the fees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County considered the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. While the court found the proposed class sufficiently numerous and ascertainable, and agreed that the question of whether the franchise fees constituted an illegal tax was subject to common proof, it identified a fundamental problem: not all proposed class members suffered an economic loss, as some landlords and property owners may have passed the cost of the fees on to tenants. The court concluded that entitlement to refunds was not susceptible to common proof and that individual issues predominated over common ones. It also found that a class action was not the superior method for resolving the dispute, due to the risk of unjust enrichment and the complexity of determining who actually bore the cost of the fees. The court denied class certification.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order under the substantial evidence standard. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that individual issues predominated and that class treatment was not superior. The order denying class certification was affirmed. View "Leeds v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

In this case, a group consisting of an alumni association and several descendants of Serranus Clinton Hastings challenged the enactment of Assembly Bill 1936, which changed the name of “Hastings College of the Law” to “College of the Law, San Francisco” and eliminated a statutory requirement that a seat on the College’s board of directors be reserved for an heir or representative of S.C. Hastings. The plaintiffs argued that the original 1878 Act establishing the College constituted a binding contract between the State and S.C. Hastings and his descendants, and that the new legislation violated constitutional protections, including the Contract Clauses, the prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, and the California Constitution’s provision regarding collegiate freedom.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the 1878 Act was a contract rather than an exercise of legislative power. The court also determined that Assembly Bill 1936 did not constitute a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, and that the changes to the College’s name and governance did not violate the California Constitution, particularly since the College’s board had requested the name change.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the State could not contract away its sovereign authority to manage a public institution, including the power to change the College’s name or governance structure. The court further concluded that Assembly Bill 1936 was not punitive and did not violate constitutional prohibitions on bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The court also found no violation of the California Constitution’s collegiate freedom provision, as the changes were initiated by the College’s board. The judgment in favor of the State and College defendants was affirmed. View "Hastings College Conservation Committee v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was originally sentenced in 2005 to a 10-year prison term for assault with a deadly weapon, with additional time added for inflicting great bodily injury, personal use of a weapon, and three prior prison commitments. Nearly two decades later, the defendant sought recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, which invalidates certain prior prison term enhancements. However, by this time, the defendant was no longer serving the original sentence that included the enhancements; instead, he was incarcerated for offenses committed while in prison, with those sentences running consecutively to the original term.After the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified the defendant as potentially eligible for relief, the Superior Court of Riverside County examined whether he qualified under section 1172.75. The court found, based on the defendant’s record, that he had completed the sentence containing the prior prison term enhancements and was now serving time solely for in-prison offenses. Relying on People v. Escobedo, the court concluded that section 1172.75 only applies to individuals currently serving a sentence that includes the now-invalidated enhancements, and not to those serving subsequent, separate sentences for in-prison offenses. The court also rejected the defendant’s equal protection argument, finding a rational basis for the legislative distinction.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.75 is limited to defendants currently serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. Because the defendant was serving a sentence for in-prison offenses, not the original judgment with the enhancements, he was ineligible for relief. The court also found no equal protection violation in the statutory scheme. View "People v. McKean" on Justia Law

Three siblings, all under the age of 14, lived with their father across the street from the defendant between 2015 and 2017. During this period, the children frequently played with the defendant’s children. In 2021, after moving in with a legal guardian due to their father’s poor health and subsequent death, the siblings disclosed that the defendant had repeatedly sexually abused them over a prolonged period. The abuse included acts of sexual intercourse, sodomy, and oral copulation, often accompanied by threats involving firearms. The defendant was charged with multiple counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child, sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger, and oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger.A jury in the Lake County Superior Court found the defendant guilty on all nine counts and found true the multiple-victim allegation. The defendant was sentenced to 75 years to life in prison, with sentences on the remaining counts stayed. On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, the defendant argued that Penal Code section 288.5 was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment’s jury unanimity requirement as interpreted in Ramos v. Louisiana, and also challenged the jury instructions regarding unanimity.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, held that section 288.5 does not violate the Sixth Amendment’s jury unanimity requirement. The court reasoned that the statute requires unanimity as to the continuous-course-of-conduct element, even if jurors may disagree on the specific acts constituting that conduct. The court also found the jury instruction claim forfeited, as the instructions given were accurate and did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Hill" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was charged with the murder of German Carrillo while both were incarcerated in the Santa Cruz County jail in 2019. The prosecution alleged that the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, specifically Nuestra Familia, and also charged the defendant with active participation in a criminal street gang. Evidence at trial included expert testimony about the gang’s structure and rules, testimony from former gang members about intra-gang discipline and removals, and details about the circumstances of Carrillo’s death, including surveillance footage and gang communications. The defendant testified about his own gang involvement, his actions during the incident, and his subsequent departure from the gang.The Santa Cruz County Superior Court conducted a jury trial, where the jury found the defendant guilty of murder with special circumstances and found the gang allegations true. The court sentenced the defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole, imposed a consecutive gang enhancement, and a concurrent sentence for the gang participation count. The court also imposed a parole revocation fine, suspended unless parole was revoked. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the gang evidence, the exclusion of certain mental health evidence, the constitutionality of his sentence, and the imposition of the parole revocation fine.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings that the murder and predicate offenses provided a non-reputational benefit to the gang, as required by amended Penal Code section 186.22. The court found no reversible error in the exclusion of mental health evidence, determined the sentence was not unconstitutionally cruel or unusual, and upheld the imposition of the parole revocation fine based on statutory requirements. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Cortez" on Justia Law

Dewayne Keith Parker faced criminal charges in both Fresno and Napa counties, including murder, burglary, and assault. He was found incompetent to stand trial in Fresno County and admitted to Napa State Hospital. While hospitalized, Parker allegedly assaulted another patient, leading to new charges in Napa County. The Napa County Superior Court found him incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the Department of State Hospitals. After Parker was restored to competency, he was discharged to Fresno County due to his primary commitment there. More than a year later, after being arrested on a Napa County bench warrant, Parker was returned to Napa County, where the court again found him incompetent to stand trial.The Napa County Superior Court held a restoration hearing and, relying on equitable tolling, paused the two-year maximum commitment period for Parker’s Napa County charges during the time he was involved in proceedings in Fresno County. Parker argued that this tolling was unauthorized by statute and violated his due process and equal protection rights. The court rejected these arguments, denied his request for release or conservatorship, and set a new commitment expiration date based on the tolled period.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that, although the statutory scheme for competency commitments does not expressly address tolling, courts have inherent equitable powers to pause the running of the commitment period when a defendant is unavailable due to proceedings in another jurisdiction. The court found that the delay caused by Parker’s simultaneous proceedings in Fresno County constituted good cause for tolling. The appellate court affirmed the Napa County Superior Court’s order, concluding that the tolling did not violate Parker’s constitutional rights. View "People v. Parker" on Justia Law

A 16-year-old committed a violent home invasion, during which he sexually assaulted his former neighbor at knifepoint. He was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses, including rape, sodomy, oral copulation, robbery, burglary, and related enhancements. The original sentence was a combination of determinate and indeterminate terms, ultimately resulting in a total sentence of 44 years to life in prison, with parole eligibility at age 60 after a later modification.After serving more than 15 years, the defendant petitioned the Superior Court of Tulare County for recall and resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170(d), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole (LWOP) and that excluding him from resentencing relief violated equal protection principles. The trial court denied the petition, finding that his sentence was not functionally equivalent to LWOP and that, under People v. Heard, he was not eligible for relief.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, considered whether the functional equivalency analysis from People v. Contreras, which is rooted in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, should apply to equal protection challenges under section 1170(d). The court declined to import the Eighth Amendment standard, instead applying a rational basis review as articulated in recent California Supreme Court decisions. The court held that the Legislature could rationally distinguish between juveniles sentenced to explicit LWOP and those, like the appellant, sentenced to lengthy terms with parole eligibility within their expected lifetimes. The court concluded that section 1170(d)’s limitation to LWOP sentences does not violate equal protection as applied to a 44-years-to-life sentence. The trial court’s denial of the petition was affirmed. View "People v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Daniel Orozco was involved in a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles, where he and three other members or associates of the Varrio Norwalk gang entered rival Chivas gang territory. During two separate incidents about twenty minutes apart, a shooter in Orozco’s car used Orozco’s gun to wound one man and kill another, who was not a gang member. Police quickly connected the car to Orozco, found the group at his home, and recovered the weapon and other evidence. Orozco was arrested along with the others. At trial, Orozco’s defense centered on his alleged intoxication, arguing he was too drunk to form criminal intent.At the preliminary hearing in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the magistrate suppressed a confession by the shooter, Martinez Garibo, due to a Miranda violation. Despite this, the magistrate found sufficient evidence to hold Orozco to answer for murder and attempted murder, but not for conspiracy to commit murder, as there was no evidence of an agreement to kill. On the day of trial, the prosecution moved to add a conspiracy charge, which the trial court allowed over Orozco’s objection. The jury convicted Orozco of all three charges, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms for murder and attempted murder, with a stayed sentence for conspiracy.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It held that the conspiracy conviction must be reversed because the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not support that charge, and Orozco was not given proper notice. The court affirmed the convictions for murder and attempted murder, finding no merit in Orozco’s other arguments, including ineffective assistance of counsel and alleged prosecutorial error. The court also held that Orozco forfeited his challenge to the attempted murder sentence by failing to object and having adequate notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "People v. Orozco" on Justia Law

A man was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer for speeding on Interstate 680. He was the sole occupant of the vehicle and did not have a valid driver’s license, instead presenting a fake one. During an inventory search of the impounded car, the officer found a loaded handgun and a large sum of cash. The firearm was determined to be registered to several previous owners, but not to the man. He was charged with carrying a concealed, loaded firearm in a vehicle and carrying a loaded firearm not registered to him.Before trial in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, the defendant filed a demurrer arguing that the statutes under which he was charged were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, as interpreted by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi. The trial court denied the demurrer. The defendant then pled no contest to the charges and appealed, with the trial court granting a certificate of probable cause.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that California’s licensing scheme for carrying concealed firearms, even as it existed prior to recent amendments, was not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that requiring a license to carry a concealed firearm is a reasonable means of screening for ineligible individuals, such as felons, and does not require a finding of dangerousness for each applicant. The court found that the statutes at issue are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and rejected the argument that the absence of a dangerousness finding rendered the statutes unconstitutional. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "P. v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted in 2003 after pleading no contest to several counts of lewd and lascivious acts with minors and one count of nonforcible oral copulation with a minor. The plea agreement amended one charge from forcible to nonforcible oral copulation, and the factual basis for the plea referenced police reports describing acts involving force. In 2005, mental health professionals evaluated the petitioner and, relying in part on a probation report, certified him as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) under California law, finding he had committed a qualifying offense involving force or violence. The Board of Parole Hearings affirmed this certification, and the petitioner did not seek review in the superior court at that time. He has remained in state custody under annual recommitment orders since then.Years later, the petitioner challenged his original MDO certification in the Fresno County Superior Court through a habeas corpus petition, arguing that his conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense for MDO commitment because he did not admit to using force or violence, and that reliance on hearsay in the probation report violated his constitutional rights. The superior court denied the petition, finding the probation report admissible and sufficient to establish use of force, and concluded the petitioner’s offense qualified under the statutory “catchall” provision for nonenumerated crimes involving force or violence.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that a habeas corpus petition is an appropriate means to challenge an initial MDO certification based on the nature of the underlying offense, even many years after the initial commitment. The court further held that the evidentiary rule announced in People v. Stevens, which restricts the use of expert testimony to prove qualifying offenses, does not apply retroactively. The court found sufficient evidence supported the original certification under the law in effect at the time and rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied. View "In re Grinder" on Justia Law