Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In California, the People v. Hardin case involves the defendant, Tony Hardin, who is serving a life sentence without parole for a special circumstance murder he committed at age 25. Hardin challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that provides parole hearings for most young adult offenders but excludes those serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed after turning 18.The Supreme Court of California found that the legislature acted rationally in distinguishing between young adults serving life sentences without parole and those serving parole-eligible sentences for crimes committed when they were young. The court reasoned that the legislature's decision to exclude certain offenders from parole hearings reflected a balance of multiple considerations, including the seriousness of the offender's crimes and the capacity of all young adults for growth.The court stated that while the primary purpose of the statute was to provide opportunities for early release to certain young adults, the legislature also considered other factors. It could rationally balance the seriousness of the offender's crimes against the capacity of all young adults for growth, and determine that young adults who have committed certain very serious crimes should remain ineligible for release from prison.The court also noted that it is the legislature's prerogative and duty to define degrees of culpability and punishment and to distinguish between crimes. Therefore, Hardin's argument that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by irrationally discriminating against young adult offenders sentenced to life without parole was dismissed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed. View "P. v. Hardin" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of California was asked to interpret the "collective engagement" requirement under the California Penal Code section 186.22(f) and its application to the proof of predicate offenses. This requirement was introduced through Assembly Bill 333, which amended gang sentencing provisions. The defendant, Kejuan Darcell Clark, a member of the Northside Parkland street gang, was charged with several offenses related to a home invasion and assault. The prosecution sought to apply gang enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b).The court held that the term "collective engagement" in section 186.22(f) does not require that each predicate offense must have been committed by at least two gang members acting in concert. Rather, the court interpreted the term to require a showing that links the two predicate offenses to the gang as an organized, collective enterprise. This can be demonstrated by evidence linking the predicate offenses to the gang's organizational structure, its primary activities, or its common goals and principles.The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal as to Clark's gang enhancement and remanded the case for further proceedings to apply this interpretation of the collective engagement requirement. View "P. v. Clark" on Justia Law

In 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, Oscar Manuel Vaquera, did not receive fair notice of the sentence that the prosecution was seeking in his case, which violated his right to due process. Vaquera was charged with two counts of a sex offense covered by California's "One Strike" law and was convicted on both counts. In the habeas corpus proceeding, Vaquera challenged the 25-year-to-life sentence the trial court imposed for the second count.The prosecution had initially requested a sentence of 15 years to life for the second count, but later argued for a 25-year-to-life sentence under a different provision of the One Strike law. Vaquera contended that the imposition of the 25-year-to-life sentence violated due process because he did not receive fair notice that the prosecution intended to seek that sentence. The California Supreme Court agreed with Vaquera and ordered the trial court to resentence him to 15 years to life for the second count.The Court ruled that the One Strike allegation in Vaquera's case did not provide him with fair notice that the prosecution was seeking a 25-year-to-life sentence under the specific provision of the law based on the victim's age. The Court held that due process requires an accusatory pleading to inform the defendant of the particular One Strike sentence the prosecution is seeking and of the factual basis it intends to prove to support that sentence. In this case, the prosecution did not provide fair notice of its intent to seek the longer One Strike sentence, which violated Vaquera's due process rights. View "In re Vaquera" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of California, the defendant, Glen Taylor Helzer, pleaded guilty to five counts of murder and multiple other charges, including robbery, kidnapping, and conspiracy. After a penalty trial, the jury sentenced him to death for the five counts of murder. The murders were particularly gruesome, involving kidnapping, robbery, and dismemberment of the bodies. The defendant argued that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and suffering from a mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the crimes. On appeal, the defendant raised several issues, including the exclusion of a potential juror due to their views on the death penalty, the denial of a proposed question during jury selection, and the admission of graphic evidence including photographs of the dismembered bodies and the sound of a power saw used in the dismemberment during the prosecution's closing argument. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings and that any error was harmless. The court held that the photographs and the sound of the saw were relevant to the circumstances of the crimes and did not unduly prejudice the jury. The court also held that the removal of a potential juror due to their views on the death penalty did not violate the defendant's right to a representative jury. View "People v. Helzer" on Justia Law

In the case of The People v. Fernando Rojas, the Supreme Court of California addressed the issue of whether the application of Assembly Bill 333 to the gang-murder special circumstance in section 190.2(a)(22) of the California Penal Code constituted an unlawful amendment of Proposition 21, which had previously defined the term "criminal street gang".The defendant, Fernando Rojas, was convicted of first degree murder and was found to have committed the crime while being an active participant in a criminal street gang, which made him subject to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under section 190.2(a)(22). While Rojas's appeal was pending, the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 333, which substantially narrowed the definition of "criminal street gang" for the purposes of section 190.2(a)(22).The lower courts disagreed on whether the application of Assembly Bill 333 would constitute an unlawful amendment of Proposition 21, which had been passed by the voters and was therefore protected from legislative amendment without a two-thirds majority vote of each house of the legislature or approval by the voters.The Supreme Court of California concluded that the application of Assembly Bill 333 to the gang-murder special circumstance did not violate the limitation on legislative amendment in Proposition 21. The Court reasoned that the voters who enacted Proposition 21 intended to impose a specific punishment for gang-related murder while relying on an existing statutory provision to define "criminal street gang". The Court found no indication that the voters intended to adopt a fixed definition of "criminal street gang" and held that applying Assembly Bill 333's narrower definition did not change the punishment for those convicted of the gang-murder special circumstance. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "P. v. Rojas" on Justia Law

In the case, a defendant, Mario Rodriguez, was charged with several felonies, each carrying a maximum sentence exceeding two years. In 2018, Rodriguez was found mentally incompetent to stand trial and committed to a state hospital. After a certificate indicating his restoration to competency was filed within the two-year time limit, Rodriguez was returned to court. However, due to COVID-19 restrictions, his hearing to confirm his competency did not take place within the two-year period. Rodriguez sought to dismiss the charges against him, claiming the time for commitment had run out.The Supreme Court of California held that under the relevant statutes, the time between the filing of a certificate of restoration of mental competency and the court's ruling on that certificate counts towards the two-year maximum commitment period mandated by section 1370(c)(1) of the California Penal Code. Therefore, the filing of a certificate of restoration does not end the period of mental incompetency commitment.The court sent the case back to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the two-year limit was exceeded in this case, and if so, what remedy Rodriguez might be entitled to. The court did not decide whether Rodriguez was entitled to the remedy of dismissal he sought, or whether and how the issue of tolling may affect Rodriguez's entitlement to any relief. View "Rodriguez v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying Petitioner's petition for relief and resentencing under the new procedure set forth in Senate Bill No. 1437 (former Cal. Penal Code 1170.95, subd. (a); now Cal. Penal Code 1172.6, subd. (a)), holding that the trial court erred.Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Twelve years later, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1437 narrowing or eliminating certain forms of accomplice liability for murder. Petitioner petitioned for relief and resentencing under the new procedure, but the trial court denied the petition for failure to state a prima facie case. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred in rejecting Petitioner's prima facie showing and should have proceeded to an evidence hearing on Petitioner's resentencing petition. View "People v. Curiel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal declining to remand this case for resentencing in light of a new law that was enacted after Defendant had been sentenced but while his appeal was still pending, holding that the court of appeal erred.At issue was Senate Bill No. 567, which created a presumption that the sentencing court shall entered a lower term sentence when, inter alia, a "psychological, physical, or childhood trauma" contributed to the offense and set forth the circumstances when a sentencing court may depart from the lower term presumption. Defendant was found guilty of false imprisonment by violence or menace and sentenced to seven years and four months in prison. While Defendant's appeal was pending, Senate Bill 567 was passed, amending Cal. Pen. Code 1170, subd. (b)(6) & (A). The Supreme Court remanded this case for resentencing, holding that the court of appeal erred by finding that the record clearly indicated that the trial court would not have imposed a lower term sentence if it had been aware of the scope of its discretionary powers under the current section 1170 at the time Defendant was sentenced. View "People v. Salazar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that persons facing involuntary commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVP Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 6600 et seq., have a due process right to a timely trial but that whether pretrial delay violates that right depends in the first instance on the reasons for the delay. See Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514, 531.In 2005, Petitioner was determined to be an SVP and committed to the state hospital for two years. The next year, the applicable statute was amended to provide for indefinite commitment instead of renewable two-year terms. Before Petitioner's term ended, the State filed a recommitment petition seeking indefinite commitment under the new version of the statute. Petitioner later filed a motion to dismiss the petition to extend commitment, arguing that the "excessive delay" in his case violated his due process right to a timely trial. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, after which Petitioner filed an original petition for a writ of mandate. The court of appeal denied the writ petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of his due process rights. View "Camacho v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal that a Department of Insurance regulation prohibiting bail bond agents from entering into agreements with jail inmates to be notified when individuals have recently been arrested and thus may be in need of bail bond services was facially invalid under the First Amendment, holding that the court of appeal erred in holding that the regulation was unconstitutional on its face.In declaring the regulation constitutionally invalid the court of appeal concluded that the regulation imposed burdens on the free speech rights of bail bond agents that were not adequately justified by the State's interests in deterring abusive bail solicitation practices. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the regulation burdened a protected speech right, that intermediate scrutiny applied, and that the regulation passed constitutional muster. View "People v. Martinez" on Justia Law