Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Eddie Ray Jones, Jr., kidnapped a grandmother, F., and her two-year- old granddaughter, E., while carjacking F.’s car in a restaurant parking lot. At defendant’s direction, F. drove him to a few locations. Eventually, defendant took over driving, parked the car, and forced F. to orally copulate him. At the beginning of this ordeal, defendant took F.’s cell phone so she could not call the police. After the oral copulation, defendant drove to another location, where he took money from F. and then allowed her to leave on foot with her granddaughter as defendant drove away in her car. Defendant would ultimately be convicted by jury of two counts of kidnapping during a carjacking, two counts of robbery, and one count of forcible oral copulation. With respect to each count, the jury also found defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate determinate prison term of 33 years plus a consecutive indeterminate term of 32 years to life. On appeal, defendant contended: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the enhancement for personal use of a firearm attached to the first robbery count, involving the taking of F.’s cell phone, because that robbery was complete before defendant displayed the gun in a menacing fashion; (2) the single larceny doctrine precluded defendant from being convicted of two robberies based on a single course of conduct; (3) the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 by imposing concurrent sentences for both robbery convictions; and (4) the abstract of judgment must be corrected. The Court of Appeal determined the abstract of judgment had be corrected. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "California v. Jones" on Justia Law

Verizon California Inc.’s (Verizon) petitioned the California State Board of Equalization’s (Board) to reduce its assessments for the tax years 2008 through 2012. Verizon paid the taxes levied by the counties for each year based on the Board-assessed values set forth in its petitions. Verizon then joined with Board staff to seek approval from the Board of joint recommendations to lower the assessed values of its property set forth in its petitions. The Board approved the joint recommendations. Verizon then filed actions for refunds for the years 2008 through 2012 arguing that the Board should have adopted the valuations proposed in its petitions. The trial court consolidated the actions. The Board moved for summary adjudication of the claims on the ground the court lacked jurisdiction because in approving the Verizon/Board staff recommendations for reduced valuations Verizon failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to the valuations it claimed in its petitions. The trial court granted the motion for summary adjudication of the consolidated actions based on the Board’s approvals of the parties’ joint recommendations for a reduction in assessed valuations. On this basis, the trial court concluded: “Because of the mutually agreed recommendation[s] on value, no disputed issues were presented to the Board for [tax years] 2008 through 2012. In each of those five years, the Board adopted the revised value that had been jointly recommended by Verizon and [the Board] staff, reducing Verizon’s tax basis by over $1.1 billion in the aggregate. [¶] . . .Verizon cannot ask the Board to adopt a jointly presented reduction in value, receive the agreed reduction, and then turn around and sue for a lower value than it asked the Board to adopt.” Verizon timely appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing again that the Board should have adopted the valuations it proposed in its petitions to the Board to reassess its property. The Court of Appeal determined the statutory ground of the actions required a “dispute” regarding the Board’s assessments of the property. Finding none, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Verizon California v. Board of Equalization" on Justia Law

Defendants Florin County Water District (district), its board of directors (board), and its general manager appealed a trial court judgment setting aside the district’s December 2016 water rate increase for violating Proposition 218 (known as the Right to Vote on Taxes Act), as requested by Plaintiffs KCSFV I, LLC and KCSFV II, LLC in their verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (petition). Defendants claimed the rate increase complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of Proposition 218, and the trial court erred in rejecting their affirmative defenses under Government Code section 66022 and the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. Defendants further challenged the trial court’s judgment awarding plaintiffs their attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal rejected defendants’ arguments pertaining to the validity of the water rate increase. The Court further rejected defendants’ challenge to the attorney fees decision in the unpublished portion of the opinion. View "KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water District" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, All of Us or None–Riverside Chapter (All of Us or None), Jane Roe, and Phyllis McNeal, filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside (Riverside Superior Court), and its Executive Officer and Clerk, W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants improperly maintained the Riverside Superior Court’s records in criminal cases in various ways. Plaintiffs alleged that these practices invaded their right to privacy as embodied in the California Constitution (fifth cause of action). Plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to declaratory relief (sixth cause of action) and writ of mandate (seventh cause of action) to remedy these violations. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s demurrer and summary judgment rulings. The Court of Appeal agreed with Plaintiffs the trial court erred in its ruling on the first, third, and fifth causes of action; as a result, the trial court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ remedial causes of action for declaratory relief (sixth cause of action) and injunctive relief (seventh cause of action) were also reversed. The matter was thus remanded for further proceedings. View "All of Us or None etc. v. Hamrick" on Justia Law

In January 2019, the Agency filed a dependency petition concerning Daniel, then about 42 months old, based on Mother's untreated substance abuse. The petition alleged that Father’s whereabouts and ability and willingness to care for Daniel were unknown. Mother did not have Father's contact information but believed he resided in Mexico. The Agency contacted Father’s sister, Ana, in May 2019. In September 2019, Father was designated “not present.” The Agency reported its efforts to locate him. In October, the juvenile court terminated reunification services to Mother, and set the matter for a February 2020 permanency planning hearing. In November, Ana provided a telephone number for Father and said he was living in Mexico City “with no stable address.” The Agency left telephone messages but received no response. In January 2020, the juvenile court found that the Agency had exercised due diligence in searching for Father. At a February hearing, Mother did not appear, and the Agency reported that Father had been given notice by publication. In May, 2020, after contacting Ana, the Agency made telephone contact with Father, who opposed adoption, wanted custody, and requested an attorney.Ultimately, the juvenile court terminated parental rights, and placed Daniel for adoption. The court of appeal affirmed the denial of Mother’s oral request to continue the permanency planning hearing but reversed the order denying Father’s petition to vacate the disposition order. Liberally construing Father’s petition, Father was entitled to an evidentiary hearing as to whether the Agency ignored the most likely means of finding him, denying him due process. View "In re Daniel F." on Justia Law

In separate criminal cases, a trial court found 37 defendants incompetent to stand trial (IST) and ordered the State Department of State Hospitals (Department) to admit them within 60 days of the receipt of an informational packet. The Department failed to timely admit 31 of the 37 defendants. These defendants separately sought sanctions against the Department pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5, claiming violation of the court’s order. The trial court found the Department in violation of the order, and imposed monetary sanctions. The Department appealed, contending the trial court was not authorized to impose sanctions against it under section 177.5. Additionally, it claimed good cause or substantial justification for violating the order even assuming the court could impose sanctions under section 177.5. After review, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the Department’s arguments and affirmed. View "California v. Aguirre" on Justia Law

Prior to entering into the plea, the trial court denied defendant Jemondre Moore’s motion to suppress evidence found during a search of defendant’s backpack, which he left on the front passenger’s side floorboard of a friend’s Jeep. The backpack was searched during a search of the Jeep pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court concluded this exception authorized the search because the officer who conducted the search had probable cause to believe the Jeep contained an unlawful amount of marijuana. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant entered a plea of no contest to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and admitted he was previously convicted of a strike offense within the meaning of the three strikes law, and served a prior prison term. The remaining count, charging defendant with possession of marijuana for sale, and additional enhancement allegations were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to serve five years in state prison. The Court of Appeal concluded the search was reasonable under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and affirmed judgment on that basis. View "California v. Moore" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeffrey Lord, Sr. was convicted by jury of making criminal threats and obstructing an executive officer by threat or violence. The trial court placed him on probation for five years. He appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for making criminal threats because the threat did not cause the victim sustained fear. He further sought to have his case remanded for resentencing in light of the new two-year limit on terms of probation for certain felonies. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed Lord’s conviction but reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "California v. Lord" on Justia Law

After a federal district court granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus triggering plaintiff's release from prison, he filed a claim with the Board, seeking compensation as a wrongfully convicted person. The Board denied the claim and plaintiff sought mandamus relief in the trial court, which upheld the board's determination.The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court should have granted the mandamus petition because the federal court's Schlup finding and the later grant of habeas relief that resulted in plaintiff's release from prison without retrial by the state amount to a finding of factual innocence that the Legislature intended to be binding, and to preclude holding a Board hearing. In determining otherwise, the court concluded that the Board did not accord the Schlup finding the significance it deserves and the Board construed Penal Code section 1485.55, subdivision (a) in a manner that undermines the Legislature's intent and effectively renders the statutory provision inoperative in practice. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter a new judgment reversing the Board's order denying plaintiff's compensation claim and directing the Board to recommend, pursuant to section 4904, that an appropriation be made and petitioner's claim paid. View "Larsen v. California Victim Compensation Board" on Justia Law

A Milpitas Fire Department captain responded to Nunes’s house one afternoon based on a report of a “whole structure fire.” He saw no fire and no smoke. Neighbors standing outside stated they had recently seen smoke coming from the backyard. A police officer “pounded” on the house’s door. No one answered. The fire captain opened a gate and entered the backyard, where he smelled smoke in the air. He found no active fire but saw test tubes, chemistry equipment, and a homemade toy rocket that looked burned on the ground. The captain noticed a closed shed. No smoke was coming from it, nor did the smell of smoke seem to originate there. He opened the shed “to make sure everything is clear,” and saw a metal cabinet. The captain admitted there was nothing specific about the cabinet that made him think he should look inside: He opened the cabinet, saw unfamiliar bottled chemicals, and called the hazardous materials team.The police ultimately obtained a search warrant, based in part on those chemicals. After the search warrant was executed, Nunes was charged with numerous offenses for possessing explosives and explosive materials. Denying Nunes's motion to suppress evidence, the trial court concluded that the search was valid under the exigent circumstances exception. The court of appeal reversed. Opening the cabinet inside the shed, however prudent and well-intentioned, was not an action necessary to prevent imminent danger. View "People v. Nunes" on Justia Law