Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 1990, real parties in interest Donald R. Ferraro and Roger Hunter pled guilty to second degree murder based on the same incident. In 2019, they each filed a petition for resentencing under the then-newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.95. Section 1170.95 was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015), which took effect January 1, 2019. The legislation limited the circumstances under which a defendant could be found guilty of murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The legislation applied retroactively, allowing qualifying petitioners to have their murder convictions vacated and be resentenced. The District Attorney for Butte County filed motions to strike the petitions for resentencing, arguing in part that Senate Bill No. 1437 was an unconstitutional amendment of two prior initiative measures: Proposition 7 (as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978)) and Proposition 115 (as approved by voters, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990)). The respondent superior court denied the motions. The District Attorney filed separate writ petitions to the Court of Appeals to challenge the superior court’s rulings. The Court of Appeals concluded Senate Bill 1437 was not an invalid amendment of either Proposition 7 or 115 because the legislation did not add to or take away from any provision in either initiative. Therefore, the Court denied the District Attorney's petitions. View "California v. Superior Court (Ferraro)" on Justia Law

In the November 2018 general election, 61percent of San Francisco voters voted for Proposition C, entitled “Additional Business Taxes to Fund Homeless Services.” San Francisco filed suit to establish that Proposition C has been validly enacted through the voters’ initiative power. The City’s complaint against “All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C” was answered by three defendants: the California Business Properties Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the California Business Roundtable (the Associations). The Associations allege that Proposition C is invalid because it imposes a special tax approved by less than two-thirds of the voting electorate as required by Propositions 13 and 218. (California Constitution Art. XIII A, section 4 & Art. XIII C, section 2(d).)The trial court granted the City judgment on the pleadings. The court of appeal affirmed, citing two California Supreme Court cases interpreting other language from Proposition 13 and Proposition 218. The supermajority vote requirements that those propositions added to the state constitution coexist with and do not displace the people’s power to enact initiatives by majority vote. Because a majority of San Francisco voters who cast ballots in November 2018 favored Proposition C, the initiative measure was validly enacted. View "City and County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in Proposition C" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jacquelyn Webster, was convicted by jury of two misdemeanor offenses. She was placed on summary probation for two years and ordered not to violate any laws, complete 200 hours of community service, and pay a $235 fine. Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal and requested court-appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. Respondent San Bernardino Superior Court’s Appellate Division, denied her request for appointed counsel on appeal. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to direct the superior court’s appellate division to: (1) vacate its order denying her request for appointment of appellate counsel; and (2) enter a new order granting her request. Finding that because incarceration could be ordered if petitioner violated probation, the Court of Appeal concluded petitioner fell within the definition of “subject to incarceration” under clear language of California Rules of Court Rule 8.851. Petitioner was therefore entitled to appointment of appellate counsel under the Rule. The writ was issued and the superior court was direct to vacate its prior order. View "Webster v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Defendant Isiah Campbell was convicted by jury on three counts of pimping and 11 counts of pandering. On appeal, he argued his convictions should have been reversed for a variety of reasons, including improper venue, insufficient evidence, the pandering statute is void for vagueness, instructional error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper conviction on multiple counts of pimping. The Court of Appeal rejected each of defendant’s contentions and affirmed judgment. View "California v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Sean Duffy was convicted by jury of numerous counts related to his possession of a stolen firearm. The trial court found true three prior prison term enhancement allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years, which included three consecutive one-year terms for each of the prior prison term enhancements. On appeal, defendant contended the Court of Appeal should have stricken the one-year prior prison term enhancements in light of newly enacted Senate Bill No. 136, which amended Penal Code section 667.5 (b) by limiting the offenses that qualify for the enhancement. Defendant also contended three of the counts described alternate ways of committing the same offense -- possession of a concealed firearm in a vehicle -- and, thus, were not separate offenses. Therefore two of those three convictions should have been stricken. The State conceded the three prior prison term enhancements should have been stricken. The Court of Appeal agreed the three counts were duplicative. Accordingly, the Court struck the prior prison term enhancements and convictions on counts 4 and 6. As modified, judgment was affirmed, and the matter was remanded for resentencing. View "California v. Duffy" on Justia Law

In 2006, Alaybue pleaded no contest to two counts of second-degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) and two counts of attempted murder (sections 187, 664(a)) and admitted a gang allegation for each count. Alaybue was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of 15 years to life on the second-degree murder convictions, consecutive to concurrent five-year determinate terms on the attempted murder convictions. In 2019, Alaybue petitioned to vacate his murder and attempted murder convictions under newly-enacted Senate Bill 1437. The trial court denied the petition, finding Senate Bill 1437 was unconstitutional because it impermissibly amended Proposition 7 (1978, increasing the penalty for first-degree murder) and Proposition 115 (1990, defining degrees of murder and addressing felony-murder liability). The court also found that Senate Bill 1437 did not apply to the crime of attempted murder.The court of appeal reversed. Senate Bill 1437 is constitutional, as it does not amend Propositions 7 and 115 and it does not violate the separation of powers doctrine by interfering with the executive’s prosecutorial functions and the finality of judgment. However, Senate Bill 1437 does not apply to the offense of attempted murder. On remand, the court may reconsider Alaybue’s petition, but only as to the murder convictions. View "People v. Alaybue" on Justia Law

Penal Code section 1170.95, which became effective in January 2019, changed the application of the felony murder and natural and probable consequences theories of murder liability. It entitles certain defendants to petition the superior court for resentencing. Paige filed such a petition, which the trial court denied, based on the fact that Paige, although he was charged with felony murder, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter via a plea agreement. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments based on statutory interpretation and federal equal protection rights. The petitioning prerequisites and available relief indicate that the legislature intended to limit relief to those convicted of murder under a theory of felony murder or natural-and-probable consequences murder. Section 1170.95 is unambiguous and does not provide relief to persons convicted of manslaughter. It is not irrational to distinguish between those convicted of murder by plea and those convicted of voluntary manslaughter by plea. View "People v. Paige" on Justia Law

Defendant Stephen Bradley was committed to the custody of the Department of State Hospitals for treatment and confinement as a sexually violent predator. Due to a series of continuances, defendant’s commitment trial did not begin until approximately three years after his probable cause hearing, and one year after he initially requested a trial. On appeal, defendant contended the Court of Appeal should have reversed the trial court’s judgment and order his release because the delay denied him his federal constitutional due process right to a timely trial. To this the Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court. View "California v. Bradley" on Justia Law

Respondent Tyson Mayfield had an extensive criminal record that included multiple acts of violence against racial minorities. As a third-strike defendant, respondent was facing a mandatory prison sentence of 25 years to life. However, the trial court dismissed one of his prior strike convictions in the interest of justice under Penal Code section 1385 and sentenced him to five years in prison. The district attorney contended the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion, and the Court of Appeal agreed. "Everything about respondent’s crime and his record shouts for application of the Three Strikes law. There is nothing about his criminal history or personal character that suggests he somehow falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings." View "California v. Mayfield" on Justia Law

Bauer, an entertainment magazine publisher, appealed the denial of its special motion to strike the amended complaint of plaintiffs, Richard Simmons and Teresa Reveles. Simmons is a self-described health and fitness guru and Reveles is Simmons's live-in caretaker. Plaintiffs filed suit against Bauer after discovering that a private detective hired by Bauer unlawfully attached an electronic tracking device in Reveles' car. Plaintiffs also filed suit against the detective and the detective's sole proprietorship, LA Intelligence.The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the special motion and held that Bauer failed to demonstrate the conduct at the heart of the lawsuit — the unlawful use of the tracking device — is, as Bauer contends, conduct in furtherance of its exercise of the right of free speech in connection with issues of public interest under the anti-SLAPP statute. View "Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC" on Justia Law