Manuel Angelo Ramirez

In People v. Miller, a jury convicted defendant Edward Lorenzo Miller, Jr. of sexual penetration of a minor based on evidence including a child's testimony and DNA analysis linking sperm on the victim to the defendant. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a new trial, finding that a DNA report prepared by an absent criminalist had been improperly admitted as a business record in violation of the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington, and that this error was prejudicial given the case's reliance on credibility. The People appealed the order. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in two respects when granting the new trial motion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a U.S. Postal Service employee cited for two Vehicle Code infractions while driving her personal vehicle on duty; after her requests for continuances were granted once and denied once, and after a notice of removal was filed in federal court but later remanded as untimely, the traffic court held trial in her absence and convicted her. On appeal, the appellate division affirmed the convictions, and after transfer, the Court of Appeal agreed with the result but not the reasoning. The court held that the traffic court erred by proceeding to trial after receiving notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), but concluded the error was harmless under state law because the removal was untimely, the defendant had no federal constitutional right to counsel in an infraction case, and she suffered no prejudice from the absence of a defense. The court further explained that Penal Code provisions treating infractions like misdemeanors for most procedural purposes did not require reversal here.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In People v. Bloom, the defendant made over 40 harassing and profane calls to 911 operators in one evening, prompting a dispatcher to complete citizen’s arrest forms and request officers take him into custody. Officers located the defendant, informed him of the citizen’s arrest, and attempted to handcuff him, but he resisted and caused minor injuries to three officers. He was charged with battery on a peace officer, resisting an executive officer, and making harassing 911 calls; after the felonies were reduced to misdemeanors, he pled guilty and later appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing the citizen’s arrest was invalid because the misdemeanor was not committed in the officers’ presence and the dispatcher did not physically participate. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding that a private citizen may lawfully delegate the physical act of arrest to officers by executing the required forms and requesting their assistance under Penal Code sections 837, 839, and 847, and that the dispatcher’s observation of the calls satisfied the presence requirement.

criminal lawprocedure

In Espinosa v. Kirkwood, plaintiffs participated in a burglary with defendant Kirkwood and were injured when his car collided with other vehicles during a police chase immediately after the crime. They sued Kirkwood for negligence-based personal injury damages, but the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the case under Civil Code section 3333.3. That statute bars recovery of damages where a plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the plaintiff's own commission of a felony or immediate flight from it, and both plaintiffs had been convicted of the underlying burglary or attempted burglary. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the statute applied because the plaintiffs voluntarily fled with Kirkwood as passengers, making an accident a foreseeable result of their joint flight and establishing proximate cause under the initiative's terms. The court rejected arguments that passenger status or the driver's role created a triable issue of fact.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

In People v. Casas, a car salesman was convicted of embezzlement after taking a customer's trade-in vehicle and downpayment to collect funds but instead driving the vehicle nearly 400 miles over two days to purchase drugs with the cash. The trial court excluded evidence of the defendant's lack of intent to permanently deprive the owner and instructed the jury that intent to temporarily deprive was sufficient. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that embezzlement requires only that the defendant's use of entrusted property significantly interferes with the owner's enjoyment or use, even if temporary, and that the trial court's rulings on evidence and jury instructions were not error. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Charles Patrick Williams, who as general manager of Valley of Enchantment Mutual Water Company embezzled over $50,000 and failed to pay the company's payroll taxes from 1999 to 2006, causing the company to incur IRS penalties and interest along with investigation costs. After Williams pleaded guilty to grand theft by embezzlement, the trial court ordered restitution but excluded the IRS penalties from the award. The People appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under Penal Code section 1202.4 the penalties constituted an economic loss directly resulting from the defendant's criminal conduct and thus must be included in restitution to fully compensate the victim company. The court distinguished prior precedent and remanded for a new restitution hearing to determine the precise amount.

criminal lawtaxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the conviction of Jose Luis Tepetitla-Cruz on multiple counts of lewd and lascivious acts on minors, including forcible acts under Penal Code sections 288 and 288a. The defendant appealed, arguing that the jury was improperly instructed that consent is not a defense to forcible lewd acts and that evidence of force was insufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that under section 288(b) consent is not a defense when force is used and the instructions were correct, while directing corrections to the trial court records.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Michael Ayiku Otubuah, who participated in an identity theft ring and was convicted of numerous offenses, including 27 counts of forgery under Penal Code section 475(c) for possessing completed counterfeit checks with intent to defraud. The trial court imposed sentences on three of those counts (one for each check issuer) and stayed the rest. On appeal, the court reversed 24 of the forgery convictions, holding that only one conviction per victim is proper because the statute targets invasions of each victim's financial autonomy, and the 27 checks came from three issuers. The judgment was also modified to impose additional court security fees for each count of conviction.

criminal law

In re M.B. involved the termination of parental rights of D.B. and C.B. to their child M.B., who was made a dependent of the juvenile court due to risks arising from the father's prior sexual abuse of a half-sibling, the mother's continued relationship with the registered sex offender father, and the parents' failure to reunify with four older half-siblings. The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services sought a permanent plan of adoption, and the Choctaw Nation intervened under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which requires expert testimony that continued parental custody would likely cause serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child. The parents appealed the termination judgment, arguing that the Indian expert failed to conduct an adequate investigation before providing the required opinion. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the expert's declaration and supporting evidence satisfied ICWA standards and that the record independently established beyond a reasonable doubt the risk of harm from continued custody.

family lawfederal power

In People v. Reynolds, a defendant previously committed as a sexually violent predator filed a pro se petition for unconditional release under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6608, citing the passage of nearly four years since his initial commitment and his prior readiness for trial with an expert witness. While his recommitment was on appeal, the trial court granted the People's motion to dismiss the petition after appointed counsel conceded there were no changed circumstances, finding the petition frivolous and denying it without prejudice to refiling later. On appeal, the defendant argued the court failed to properly review the petition, that it was not frivolous, and that counsel was ineffective for not opposing dismissal. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the petition lacked any showing of changed circumstances or merit under section 6608, that dismissal without a hearing was proper when grounds were frivolous, and that counsel's tactical concession did not constitute ineffective assistance given the absence of supporting facts or authority.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Roberto Sanchez Aguilar, who was convicted by jury of first-degree residential burglary after being found inside a fire-damaged apartment using the victim's belongings, with items moved in a manner suggesting intent to take them. The defendant argued there was insufficient evidence the apartment remained "inhabited" under Penal Code sections 459 and 460 because of the fire damage and temporary relocation, and that the trial court erred by excluding testimony and documents from a building inspector indicating the structure was technically uninhabitable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, reasoning that whether a dwelling is inhabited is determined from the victim's perspective and intent to return at the time of entry, which was supported by evidence that the victim had not yet learned he could not resume living there. The court further held that the inspector's evidence regarding building code status was irrelevant without foundation showing the victim was aware of it during the relevant period.

criminal law

The case concerned defendant Frank Hernandez, who pled guilty to two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood-alcohol enhancement and admitted three prior convictions. After an initial misdemeanor complaint was dismissed under Penal Code section 1385 and refiled as a felony complaint based on the priors, one prior conviction was later struck on ex post facto grounds, reducing the current offenses to misdemeanors; the defendant then moved to dismiss the information for lack of jurisdiction and on the ground that Penal Code section 1387 barred refiling after the earlier dismissal. The trial court overruled the demurrer and denied the motion to dismiss, and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that section 1387's one-dismissal rule for misdemeanors did not apply because the case had been properly pursued as a felony and the policies underlying the statute permitted continued prosecution of serious repeat offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Sanchez, a jury convicted the defendant of misdemeanor indecent exposure, and he appealed on the ground that a deputy's escort to and from the witness stand and nearby positioning during his testimony violated his right to a fair trial. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting the claim that the security measures were inherently prejudicial or created an unacceptable risk of jury bias. It reasoned that, under the California Supreme Court's analysis in People v. Stevens, the presence of identifiable security personnel does not single out the defendant in a way that equates to shackling or prison garb, and jurors may reasonably infer the measures serve general safety rather than implying guilt. The court further noted that the deputy maintained a respectful distance without distracting behavior, and the jury was instructed to disregard the defendant's custody status.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Eddie Jason Lowery, who was convicted by a jury of one count of threatening a victim or witness under Penal Code section 140, subdivision (a), based on recorded statements he made about killing an elderly man who had testified against him and his wife in a prior theft prosecution. Lowery appealed, arguing that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment because it did not require proof that the defendant specifically intended the statement as a threat or had the apparent ability to carry it out. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute prohibits only true threats, which are not protected speech, and that it does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected expression even without the additional elements Lowery proposed.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved defendant Andrew Neil Bejarano, a convicted sex offender with a prior prison term, who was charged with failing to register within five days of his July 2006 birthday as required by Penal Code section 290.012. He admitted the prior conviction and was sentenced to two years and four months in prison after a jury found him guilty. Bejarano appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly limited expert testimony from a forensic psychologist about his severe depression following his father's death, which he claimed impaired his ability to register; that the jury was misinstructed; that his trial counsel was ineffective; and that sentencing errors occurred. The Court of Appeal rejected these claims, holding that the psychologist could not testify on the ultimate issue of willfulness or intent under section 29 and existing precedent like People v. Barker and People v. Sorden, which require more than depression to negate the mens rea for failure to register, and it affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that Bejarano knew of his duty, had registered many times before, and the excluded testimony would have improperly addressed whether his depression excused his knowing failure to act.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Michael Barrett Cason, who was on probation for prior felonies when charged with two counts of pimping and two counts of pandering under Penal Code sections 266h and 266i for recruiting and profiting from the prostitution of two women, Q. and P. At trial, evidence included testimony from Q. and another woman, D., detailing how the defendant used online ads, provided cell phones, set quotas, collected earnings, and persuaded vulnerable women to work for him as prostitutes, though P. did not testify. The jury convicted him on all counts, and the defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for three of the four convictions. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the testimony established the defendant's pattern of solicitation, inducement, and financial control, which was sufficient to support the pimping and pandering convictions even without direct testimony from P.

criminal law

In People v. Cohens, the defendant was convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant and failure to register as a sex offender after evidence indicated he had been regularly residing at a second address without updating his registration. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the prosecution was required to prove he actually knew of the duty to register at that specific address. The Court of Appeal agreed the instruction was incomplete as to the knowledge element but concluded the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the defendant's stipulations and the evidence presented, and therefore affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Reynolds, a defendant previously committed as a sexually violent predator filed a pro se petition for unconditional release under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6608 while his recommitment was pending on appeal. The petition cited the passage of nearly four years since his initial commitment and his earlier readiness for trial with an expert witness. The trial court dismissed the petition after the People moved to dismiss and defense counsel conceded there were no changed circumstances. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition was frivolous because it lacked any showing of changed circumstances or evidence rebutting recent evaluations concluding the defendant remained an SVP, and that counsel's concession did not constitute ineffective assistance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Michael Troy Jones's appeal from his jury conviction for arson of property and the resulting 16-year prison sentence, which incorporated enhancements and a doubled term based on a prior arson conviction admitted before trial. Jones argued that the trial court failed to advise him of the direct sentencing consequences of admitting the prior conviction, improperly used the prior conviction multiple times in calculating the sentence in violation of rules against dual use of facts, and failed to consider certain mitigating factors. The court determined that Jones waived his claims regarding advisements and mitigating factors by not raising them at or before sentencing, as required under judicially declared rules of criminal procedure, and clarified that a single valid aggravating factor supported the upper term while addressing the proper use of the prior conviction for enhancements and the strike. The judgment was affirmed after rehearing on the dual-use issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a boxing referee and his wife suing the State of California after the State Athletic Commission licensed a boxer who later tested positive for HIV without requiring proof of a negative test result, potentially exposing the referee to infection during a match with blood contact. The trial court dismissed the complaint on demurrer, ruling that the state was immune from liability under Government Code section 818.4 because licensing decisions are discretionary. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Business and Professions Code section 18712 imposes a mandatory duty on the Commission to require negative HIV tests before licensing boxers or authorizing their participation in matches, so the state is not protected by the discretionary immunity provision and may be liable under Government Code section 815.6 for failing to perform that duty.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory