Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A direct contractor’s timely payment to its subcontractors may be excused under Cal. Civ. Code 8814(c) only when the direct contractor has a good faith basis for contesting the subcontractor’s right to receive the specific monies that are withheld.United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (United Riggers) sued Coast Iron & Steel Co. (Coast Iron) alleging failure to make prompt payment of monies owed United Riggers for its work on a project. See Cal. Civ. Code 8814, 8818. Coast Iron paid United Riggers, but the payments did not moot United Riggers’s statutory claim because the statutory scheme imposes a penalty for delay. The trial court entered judgment for Coast Iron. The court of appeal reversed on the statutory claim for failure to make timely retention payments, holding that Coast Iron could not use the parties’ dispute over project mismanagement to justify withholding United Riggers’s pay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Coast Iron did not present a good faith argument for why the withheld monies were no longer due to United Riggers. View "United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co." on Justia Law

A defendant, who has been placed on probation in one county but permanently resides in another and whose whose probation case has been transferred, must file a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 in the original sentencing court. See Cal. Penal Code 1170.18.Defendant was placed on felony probation by the San Diego County Superior Court. Defendant lived in Riverside County, and the court transferred his case there. Defendant later filed a petition in Riverside County to recall his felony sentence and impose a misdemeanor term under Proposition 47. The Riverside court granted Defendant’s petition. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, even in the case of a probationary transfer, the original sentencing court is the proper venue for a resentencing petition under section 1170.18. View "People v. Adelmann" on Justia Law

The State Water Resources Control Board’s adoption of a permit fee schedule was proper and violated neither Cal. Water Code 13260(d)(1)(B) or (f)(1) nor Cal. Const. art. XIII A.By statute, the Board has five members. At the time of the meeting at which the Board members voted to approve the fee schedule, two of those seats were vacant. Two of the three members voted to approve one of the proposed fee schedules, and the third member abstained. Based on that vote, the Board adopted emergency regulations retroactively revising the fee schedule. Plaintiff challenged the Board’s approval of the fee schedule. The trial court entered judgment for the Board. The court of appeal affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) procedural challenge; (2) the fee schedule did not violate section 13260(d)(1)(B) or (f)(1); and (3) the fees did not violate constitutional restrictions contained in article XIII A. View "California Building Industry Association v. State Water Resources Control Board" on Justia Law

The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36), under which an inmate sentenced under the Three Strikes law for a nonferrous, nonviolent felony may petition the trial court for resentencing, permits a trial court to find a defendant was armed with a deadly weapon and is therefore ineligible for resentencing only if the prosecutor proves this basis for ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, the trial court’s eligibility determination may rely on facts not found by a jury.One of the criteria for resentencing eligibility under Proposition 36 is that the inmate must not have been armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of the current offense. The trial court determined that Defendant was eligible for resentencing. The court of appeal reversed on the grounds that Defendant was armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of his current offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence in support of Defendant’s conviction did not reasonably support any inference but that Defendant was armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of his current offense. View "People v. Perez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, the special circumstance of multiple murder, and various enhancements. The Court held (1) the prosecutor did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights to equal protection and a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community by peremptorily excusing five black prospective jurors at the guilt phase; (2) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment and his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by denying his motion for a continuance; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; (4) any error in the jury instructions related to eyewitness identification was harmless; (5) the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the penalty phase retrial jury on lingering doubt; (6) the trial court did not err in not offering supplemental instructions when it was clear that the jury’s verdict was not unanimous; (7) Defendant’s challenges to the penalty phase jury instructions were unavailing; and (8) Defendant’s remaining allegations of error were without merit. View "People v. Reed" on Justia Law

At issue was what standard applies in determining whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contract for purposes of California wage orders.Two drivers filed this purported class action alleging that Dynamex Operations West, Inc. had misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The trial court ultimately certified a class action embodying a class of Dynamex drivers who, during a pay period, did not themselves employ other drivers and did not do delivery work for other delivery businesses or for the drivers’ own personal customers. The court of appeal upheld the trial court’s class certification order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly concluded that the “suffer or permit to work” definition of “employ” contained in the wage order may be relied upon in evaluating whether a worker is an independent contractor; (2) in determining whether, under the suffer or permit to work definition, a worker is properly considered the type of independent contractor to whom the wage order does not apply, it is appropriate to look to the so-called “ABC” test utilized in other jurisdictions; and (3) the trial court’s certification order was correct as a matter of law under a proper understanding of the suffer or permit to work standard. View "Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County" on Justia Law

At issue was what standard applies in determining whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contract for purposes of California wage orders.Two drivers filed this purported class action alleging that Dynamex Operations West, Inc. had misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The trial court ultimately certified a class action embodying a class of Dynamex drivers who, during a pay period, did not themselves employ other drivers and did not do delivery work for other delivery businesses or for the drivers’ own personal customers. The court of appeal upheld the trial court’s class certification order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly concluded that the “suffer or permit to work” definition of “employ” contained in the wage order may be relied upon in evaluating whether a worker is an independent contractor; (2) in determining whether, under the suffer or permit to work definition, a worker is properly considered the type of independent contractor to whom the wage order does not apply, it is appropriate to look to the so-called “ABC” test utilized in other jurisdictions; and (3) the trial court’s certification order was correct as a matter of law under a proper understanding of the suffer or permit to work standard. View "Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County" on Justia Law

In deciding whether a defendant is guilty of murder, the jury is permitted to consider evidence of voluntary invocation on the question of whether the defendant intended to kill but not on the question of whether he believed he needed to act in self-defense.Defendant was charged with first degree murder and first degree burglary. Defendant claimed he was guilty of, at most, voluntary manslaughter because he killed in “unreasonable self-defense” - that is, he actually believed he needed to act in self-defense even if that belief was unreasonable. The jury acquitted Defendant of first degree murder but found him guilty of second degree murder and first degree burglary. On appeal, the court of appeal concluded that the trial court erred in prohibiting the jury from considering evidence of voluntary intoxication on the question of whether Defendant believe he needed to act in self-defense, but the error was harmless. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on how it could consider Defendant’s evidence of voluntary intoxication. View "People v. Soto" on Justia Law

In 2005, Chavez pleaded no contest to charges that he offered to sell a controlled substance and failed to appear after being released on his own recognizance. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Chavez on probation for four years, a term he successfully completed in 2009. In 2013, Chavez, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, asked the court to exercise its authority under Penal Code section 1385 to dismiss his previous convictions in the interests of justice. He did not seek relief under section 1203.4, which permits eligible defendants to obtain dismissal of accusations after completing probation. The trial court, court of appeal, and California Supreme Court denied him relief. A trial court would exceed the authority conferred by section 1385 if it dismissed an action after the probation period expires; a court may exercise that dismissal power before judgment is pronounced but not after judgment is final. In the case of a successful probationer, final judgment is never pronounced, and after the expiration of probation, may never be pronounced; section 1385’s power may be exercised until a judgment is pronounced or when the power to pronounce judgment runs out. View "People v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Daveggio and Michaud were each convicted of one count of first-degree murder (Pen. Code 187(a)), two counts of oral copulation in concert by force (section 288a(d)), and one count of oral copulation on a person under 18 years of age (288a(b)(1)). The jury also found true two special circumstances, kidnapping, and rape by instrument (190.2(a)(17)(B), (K)), and returned verdicts of death. The trial court denied the automatic motions to modify the verdicts and sentenced defendants to death. On automatic appeal (section1239(b)), the Supreme Court of California affirmed after recounting numerous uncharged crimes. The court upheld the denial of the defendants’ severance motions, the admission of the evidence of uncharged incidents, and evidentiary rulings concerning fingerprint evidence, carpeting in Michaud’s van, and certain weaponry. View "People v. Daveggio & Michaud" on Justia Law