Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 1996, California voters enacted Proposition 218, adding article XIII D to the California Constitution, which includes section 6(b)(3). This section mandates that governmental fees or charges imposed on property must not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Plaintiffs, representing a class of single-family residential (SFR) customers of the City of San Diego, challenged the City's tiered water rates, claiming they violated section 6(b)(3) by exceeding the proportional cost of delivering water.The Superior Court of San Diego County ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the City's tiered rates did not comply with section 6(b)(3). The court concluded that the City failed to show that its tiered rates were based on the actual cost of providing water at different usage levels. The court found that the City's tiered rates were designed to encourage conservation rather than reflect the cost of service, and that the City's use of peaking factors and other methodologies lacked supporting data.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the City did not meet its burden of proving that its tiered rates complied with section 6(b)(3). The appellate court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings that the City's tiered rates were not cost-proportional and that the City's methodologies were not adequately supported by data. The court also addressed the issue of class certification, finding that the class was properly certified and that the plaintiffs had a common interest in challenging the City's rate structure.The appellate court directed the trial court to amend the judgment to allow the City to satisfy the refund award pursuant to newly enacted Government Code section 53758.5, which requires agencies to credit refund awards against future increases in or impositions of the property-related charge. The court denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees on appeal without prejudice, allowing the trial court to determine the entitlement to such fees. View "Patz v. City of S.D." on Justia Law

An 18-year-old defendant assisted his employer, a drug dealer, in abducting a drug addict at gunpoint. The victim, who had previously sold drugs for the dealer under threat, was lured to a parking lot, forcibly taken to the dealer’s home, and subjected to prolonged violence and threats in an attempt to extort $100,000. The victim was beaten, tied up, threatened with death, forced to ingest or absorb drugs, and ultimately locked in a closet with the door screwed shut. After approximately 28 hours, a SWAT team rescued the victim. The defendant was present throughout the ordeal, actively participated in the violence, and threatened the victim and his family.A jury in the Superior Court of Orange County convicted the defendant of aggravated kidnapping with bodily harm and a firearm enhancement. The court imposed a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) plus a 10-year firearm enhancement, and also imposed a $300 parole revocation fine. The defendant appealed, arguing that the LWOP sentence was unconstitutional as applied to 18-year-olds under both the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, and that the parole revocation fine was improper because he was ineligible for parole.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court does not extend the constitutional protections against LWOP sentences for juveniles to offenders who were 18 at the time of the crime. The court also found that the sentence was not grossly disproportionate under the California Constitution, given the defendant’s conduct and criminal history. However, the court agreed that the parole revocation fine was improper and ordered it stricken. The judgment was affirmed as modified. View "P. v. Christensen" on Justia Law

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 57, which amended the California Constitution to allow the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) to award credits for good behavior and rehabilitative or educational achievements. The department adopted regulations to award credits beyond statutory limits and to use credits to advance indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and several family members of crime victims challenged these regulations through a petition for writ of mandate.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied the writ in part and granted it in part, invalidating the department’s regulations to the extent they allowed the use of credits to advance an indeterminately-sentenced inmate’s minimum eligible parole date. Both the department and the petitioners appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Proposition 57 properly removed statutory restraints on the department’s authority to award credits, allowing the regulations to supersede contrary statutes. However, the court also held that the department may use credits to advance indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates only if permitted by existing law, as Proposition 57 is silent on this issue. The court remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to modify the writ of mandate and enter a modified judgment. View "Criminal Justice Legal Foundation v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

An attorney, Morris S. Getzels, challenged the constitutional validity of State Bar Rule 2.30, which prevents inactive licensees from acting as private arbitrators and mediators. Getzels argued that this rule violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and California Constitutions by treating inactive licensees differently from others. He claimed that the rule impinges on the fundamental liberty of "freedom of contract" and that there is no rational basis for the rule.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the State Bar's demurrer without leave to amend, leading to a judgment of dismissal. The court found that rational basis review was the appropriate standard for evaluating Getzels's equal protection claim. It concluded that funding the State Bar’s regulatory functions was a legitimate government purpose and that requiring licensees to pay the active membership fee was related to this purpose. The court determined that the State Bar had sufficiently articulated a rational basis for the disparate treatment of inactive licensees.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that rational basis review was the correct standard, as the rule did not involve a suspect class or a fundamental right. The court found that the State Bar had a legitimate interest in maintaining a competent bar and ensuring the professional conduct of its licensees. It concluded that Rule 2.30’s distinction between active and inactive licensees was rationally related to this goal, as inactive licensees acting as private arbitrators and mediators could burden the State Bar’s regulatory system. The court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, upholding the constitutionality of Rule 2.30. View "Getzels v. The State Bar of California" on Justia Law

David Valle, an inmate at the California Men’s Colony, was found in possession of a 14-inch by 1-inch sharpened plastic fragment, metal fragments from a shower valve cover, and a folded metal sheet during a cell search. The plastic fragment was described as a weapon resembling a spear or knife. Valle admitted to having the items but claimed he could not remember why.Valle was convicted by a jury of possessing a sharp instrument in prison under Penal Code section 4502. The trial court sentenced him as a third-strike offender to 25 years to life in prison. Valle appealed, arguing that section 4502 is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define "sharp instrument."The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed Valle's constitutional challenge de novo and rejected it. The court held that section 4502 is not unconstitutionally vague, either facially or as applied to Valle. The court reasoned that the statute's purpose is to protect inmates and prison officials from assaults by armed prisoners and that it provides a clear standard of conduct. The court cited previous California decisions that consistently upheld the statute's constitutionality.The court concluded that a 14-inch by 1-inch sharpened piece of hard, non-flexible plastic is a sharp instrument prohibited by section 4502. Valle's possession of such items, concealed in his cell, demonstrated his understanding that they were prohibited. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Valle" on Justia Law

In 2022, the City of Sacramento proposed a new storm drainage fee to fund repairs, maintenance, and improvements to its storm drainage system. The fee was calculated based on parcel size and land use, expected to generate approximately $20 million annually, with City-owned properties contributing about $496,000. The City conducted an election, mailing ballots to property owners, including itself, as it owned one percent of the properties. The fee was approved with 22,178 votes in favor and 20,229 against. Without the City's votes, the fee would not have passed.Dessins LLC, a property owner who voted against the fee, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint against the City and the City Council, arguing that the City's votes should not have counted. The Superior Court of Sacramento County ruled in favor of the City, concluding that the City was entitled to vote in the election. Dessins then appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the City, as a property owner of properties subject to the fee, was entitled to vote under article XIII D, section 6, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution. The court found that the plain language of the provision allowed the City to vote and that the City's vote did not subvert the purposes of Proposition 218. The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, allowing the storm drainage fee to stand. View "Dessins v. City of Sacramento" on Justia Law

The case involves Pacific Bell Telephone Company and other utilities suing the County of Napa and the state Board of Equalization for a refund of property taxes and declaratory relief. The utilities argue that from 2018 to 2023, the tax rates used to compute the debt-service component of their property taxes were higher than those applied to other properties, violating the California Constitution's requirement that public utility property be taxed in the same manner as other property.In the lower court, the trial court sustained the respondents' demurrer to the utilities' complaint without leave to amend, based on the precedent set by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, which held that the California Constitution does not mandate that public utility property be taxed at the same rate as other property. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the respondents.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing with the reasoning in Santa Clara and another case, Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Merced. The court concluded that the constitutional provision does not require the same or comparable debt-service tax rates for public utility and nonutility property. The court also rejected the utilities' claim that the tax rates violated the principle of taxation uniformity embodied in the California Constitution. The judgment in favor of the respondents was affirmed. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Napa" on Justia Law

Daniel Bray pleaded no contest to possession of child pornography. The trial court sentenced him to two years of formal probation with several conditions, including restrictions on Internet use, dating or socializing with individuals who have custody of minors, and prohibitions on possessing or frequenting places with pornography. Bray challenged these conditions as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.The Santa Clara County Superior Court imposed these conditions, and Bray objected to the conditions regarding Internet use, dating and socializing, and pornography. The trial court overruled his objections, finding the conditions reasonable and related to the offense. Bray then appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the Internet use restriction was overbroad, as it unduly burdened Bray's ability to perform daily tasks and maintain employment. The court also found the condition on dating and socializing overbroad, as it infringed on Bray's right to freedom of association without being closely tailored to the goal of protecting minors. Additionally, the court agreed with the Attorney General's concession that the conditions regarding pornography were unconstitutionally vague and needed modification.The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court to strike or modify the conditions on Internet use, dating and socializing, and pornography to ensure they are narrowly tailored and specific. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "People v. Bray" on Justia Law

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of an annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax that required voter approval, which had not been obtained. The trial court rejected the owners' argument and ruled in favor of the County.The Superior Court of Riverside County entered judgment for the County, finding that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the separate assessment. The court considered various costs, including those related to a new computer system and assessment appeals, even though these costs were not included in the original budget used to set the fee.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the $23 fee was not a tax requiring voter approval under Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed, as it included costs unrelated to the specific service of providing separate timeshare assessments and did not accurately reflect the actual cost of the service. The court also ruled that the trial court erred in considering costs incurred after the fiscal year used to set the fee.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to decide on the declaratory, injunctive, and/or writ relief sought by the owners. The County must prove the reasonable and necessary costs of providing the separate assessment service, excluding costs for valuing the timeshare project as a whole. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

In 1996, Daniel Whalen was convicted of first-degree murder during a robbery and received a death sentence. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Supreme Court in 2013, and his first state habeas corpus petition was denied in 2014. Whalen filed a second habeas corpus petition in 2016, raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and constitutional challenges to the death penalty. This petition was transferred to the Stanislaus Superior Court, which denied it in 2022, finding the claims were successive and could have been raised earlier.Whalen appealed the denial and requested a certificate of appealability from the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The appellate court initially denied the request, but the California Supreme Court directed it to reconsider whether the superior court had properly ruled the petition as successive under Proposition 66 and its implementing statutes. Upon remand, the superior court reaffirmed its decision that the claims were successive and granted a certificate of appealability without specifying the claims.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found the certificate of appealability fatally defective because it did not indicate which claims were substantial, as required by law. The court dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the superior court to either deny the certificate of appealability or issue a new one that complies with the statutory requirements. The appellate court also upheld the constitutionality of section 1509, subdivision (d), which limits successive habeas corpus petitions to claims of actual innocence or ineligibility for the death sentence. View "In re Whalen" on Justia Law