Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged in a felony complaint with attempted first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling and second degree burglary of an automobile. At issue was whether a person standing in the driveway of a residence who used a remote control to open a motorized garage door had entered the residence within the meaning of the burglary statute. The court held that using a remote control to open a garage door did not constitute an entry into the residence. On these facts, defendant could be charged with attempted burglary but he could not be charged with a completed burglary. View "Magness v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted murder with a street-gang enhancement and to second degree robbery in exchange for a 17-year prison term and dismissal of other allegations. At issue was whether the imposition of a mandatory restitution fine violated a defendant's plea agreement where the parties failed to make the fine an express term of the agreement and where the trial court failed to mention the fine during the colloquy. Because the amount of defendant's restitution fine was either made a part of his plea nor otherwise specified in the plea colloquy, the court concluded that it was left to the trial court's discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the court of appeal's judgment because it reached the same conclusion. View "People v. Villalobos" on Justia Law

Defendant, a gang member and convicted felon, shot a victim and was convicted of and punished for assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a felon, and actively participating in a criminal street gang. The court held that Penal Code 654 did not permit punishment for defendant's gang crimes in addition to his punishments for assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon. Accordingly, defendant's two eight-month sentences for his two convictions for committing the assault for the benefit of the gang, section 186.22, must be stayed. In all other respects, the judgment of the court of appeal was affirmed. View "People v. Mesa" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with several felonies, including murder with special circumstances. At issue was whether Penal Code 1054.3(b)(1) extended to a defendant who had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) and proposed to call a mental health expert on the issue of sanity. The court concluded that section 1054.3(b)(1) did not apply in these circumstances. By its terms, the statute authorized an order compelling examination by a prosecution-retained expert "whenever... at any phase of the criminal action" the defense has proposed its own expert testimony on mental state, "[u]nless otherwise specifically addressed by an existing provision of law." Penal Code 1027, which governed the adjudication of an NGI plea, specifically addressed defendant's examination by court-appointed experts, but not by prosecution-retained experts, the subject of section 1054(b)(1). Therefore, the exception in section 1054(b)(1) did not pertain, and that statute as a whole applied. View "Sharp v. Super. Ct. of Ventura Cty" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to death after being convicted of the first degree murders of three victims and the attempted premeditated murders of two other victims. Defendant's appeal was automatic and the court addressed issues related to the guilt phase and the penalty phase of trial. The court held that the $10,000 restitution fine was stricken and the amounts awarded to the victim/witness compensation program were stricken. The restitution orders were modified to award Alice Arnold $3,440.67 in victim restitution and to award the victim/witness compensation program $8,678.73 in victim restitution. As so modified, the judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Souza" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. At issue was when a trial court denied a defendant's motion for a physical lineup and the defendant did not seek review of that ruling, was the defendant barred from the issue on postjudgment appeal. The court of appeal said yes, reasoning that a failure to challenge the ruling by writ undermined the purpose of the lineup right conferred under Evans v. Superior Court. In the alternative, the court of appeals assumed the issue was preserved and that the trial court erred, but that any error was harmless. The court held that the court of appeal erred in holding that defendant forfeited his right to appeal the denial of his lineup motion by failing to pursue writ relief. However, that court correctly concluded that the trial court's error, if any, was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Mena" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder of his elderly neighbor and the jury found true the three special circumstance allegations that the murder took place during the commission of rape, sodomy, and burglary. Defendant was additionally convicted of arson and the jury found true various sentencing enhancements. Defendant was sentenced to death and this appeal was automatic. The court affirmed the judgment in its entirety. With respect to the abstract of judgment, however, the court ordered that it be corrected to conform to the trial court's oral judgment pronounced as to count II (arson) of an indeterminate term of 25 years of life, with an additional determinate term of five years. View "People v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant lived and sold drugs in Madera County; possessed a key and a receipt for a storage locker that was located in neighboring Fresno County; the storage locker contained drugs and a firearm. The Court of Appeal ruled that the drugs and firearm located in Fresno County did not provide a basis for prosecuting defendant in Madera County for possession for sale of a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court disagreed and concluded that Madera County was a proper venue in which to prosecute defendant because defendant committed preparatory acts in Madera County and because the effects of defendant's unlawful possession of the drugs and firearm found in the Fresno storage locker would be felt in Madera County. View "People v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seven felony sex offenses related to the molesting of his two stepdaughters, including one count of oral copulation of Jane Doe 1 in violation of Penal Code 288.7. Defendant claimed on appeal, among other things, that his section 288.7(b) conviction must be reversed and the count dismissed because Jane Doe 1 - who was 10 years and approximately 11 months old at the time of the molestation - was not "10 years of age or younger" within the meaning of section 288.7. The court concluded that the interpretation of the statutory phrase "10 years of age or younger" included children younger than 10 years of age and children who have reached their 10th birthday but who have not yet reached their 11th birthday. That is, "10 years of age or younger" as expressed by the Legislature in section 288.7 was another means of saying "under 11 years of age." Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it concluded defendant was improperly convicted of violating section 288.7(b) with respect to Jane Doe 1. View "People v. Cornett" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued IFP and multiple DOE defendants for violating various labor laws as well as the unfair competition law (UCL)(Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.). The amended complaint stated seven claims, the sixth of which alleged the failure to provide rest breaks as required by Labor Code 226.7. Plaintiffs ultimately dismissed this claim with prejudice after settling with the DOE defendants. IFP subsequently moved for attorney's fees under Labor Code 218.5. The trial court awarded fees and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court concluded, in light of the relevant statutory language and legislative history, that neither Labor Code 1194 nor 218.5 authorized an award of attorney's fees to a party that prevailed on a section 226.7 claim. Accordingly, the court reversed on this claim and affirmed the judgment on plaintiffs' other claims. View "Kirby, et al. v. Imoos Fire etc." on Justia Law