No new cases tomorrow

October 5, 2022 Leave a comment

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

No new cases Monday

September 30, 2022 Leave a comment

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases tomorrow

September 28, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

No new cases Monday

September 23, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases tomorrow

September 21, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow, Thursday.

No new cases Monday

September 16, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases tomorrow

September 14, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

No new cases Monday

September 9, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases tomorrow

September 7, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

No new cases today

September 1, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases today.

Death penalty affirmed

September 1, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case last Monday.

People v. Tran

S165993

Assault with a deadly weapon and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury are different statements of the same offense

August 26, 2022 Comments off

Assault with a deadly weapon and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury are different statements of the same offense

People v. Aguayo

S254554

In prior
decisions involving section 954, we outlined specific factors to
consider in examining the statutory language of the offense(s)
before turning to other indicia of legislative intent. (See People
v. White (2017) 2 Cal.5th 349 (White); Vidana, supra, 1 Cal.5th
632; Gonzalez, supra, 60 Cal.4th 533.) Having analyzed this
case under that framework, we hold that assault with a deadly
weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and force likely assault (id., subd.
(a)(4)) are “different statements of the same offense” (§ 954).

THE GANG ENHANCEMENT CAN’T BE SUPPORTED JUST BY EXPERT CLAIMING REPUTATIONAL BENEFIT

August 26, 2022 Comments off

THE GANG ENHANCEMENT CAN’T BE SUPPORTED JUST BY EXPERT CLAIMING REPUTATIONAL BENEFIT

People v. Renteria

S266854

We granted review to address the showing the prosecution
must make to establish that Penal Code section 186.22 gang
enhancements or penalties apply to a crime committed by a gang

member who acts alone. Not every crime committed by an
individual gang member is for the gang’s benefit or to promote
criminal conduct by gang members, as the gang enhancement
statute requires in such cases; gang members can, of course,
commit crimes for their own purposes. Without more, expert
testimony about the reputational benefits of crime does not
support an inference that a lone gang member committed a
crime for gang-related reasons — as opposed to acting from
other, more personal motives. Because there was no adequate
basis for drawing the necessary inference about Renteria’s
intent in this case, we reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeal and remand for resentencing.

g

Death penalty affirmed

August 26, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes have affirmed another death penalty verdict.

People v. Ramirez

S099844

Coming tomorrow

August 24, 2022 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes

PEOPLE v. AGUAYO (VERONICA)
S254554 (D073304; San Diego County Superior Court – SCS295489)
Argued in San Francisco 6-08-22
This case includes the following issues: Is assault by means of force likely to
produce great bodily injury a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon?
(See People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 16, fn. 5.) If so, was defendant’s conviction of
assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury based on the same act or
course of conduct as her conviction of assault with a deadly weapon? Are Penal Code
section 245, subdivision (a)(1) and section 245, subdivision (a)(4) merely different
statements of the same offense for purposes of section 954? If so, must one of defendant’s
convictions be vacated?


PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ (JUAN VILLA)
S099844 (Kern County Superior Court – SC076259A)
Argued in San Francisco 6-08-22
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.


PEOPLE v. RENTERIA (CRISTIAN)
S266854 (F076973; Tulare County Superior Court – VCF304654)
Argued in San Francisco 6-07-22
This case presents the following issue: Was the evidence sufficient to support the
criminal street gang enhancements imposed under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision
(b)?

Gallardo is not retroactive

August 22, 2022 Comments off

Gallardo is not retroactive

In 2017, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus, seeking resentencing under People v. Gallardo (2017) 4
Cal.5th 120, 124–125 (Gallardo), where we held that a trial
court violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury
trial when it makes factual findings about the nature of a
defendant’s prior conviction in imposing an enhanced sentence
based on that prior conviction. The Court of Appeal denied the
petition on the ground that Gallardo was not retroactive to
petitioner’s judgment, which had been final since 2000. (People
v. Milton (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 977, 982, 987 (Milton).)


The Courts of Appeal that have addressed the question of
Gallardo’s retroactivity have reached conflicting results. We
conclude the Gallardo rule does not apply retroactively to final
judgments.

People v. Milton

S259954

Criminal intent is negated by a mistaken belief, even if not reasonable

August 22, 2022 Comments off

Criminal intent is negated by a mistaken belief, even if not reasonable

At trial, the court gave the jury a standard mistake of fact instruction, which informed jurors that they should not convict Hendrix if they determined he lacked criminal intent because he mistakenly believed a relevant fact — namely, that the house belonged to his cousin and not to a stranger. But the instruction specified that the mistake in question had to be a reasonable one. All parties now acknowledge this was error: To negate the specific criminal intent required for burglary, a defendant’s mistaken belief need not be reasonable, just genuinely held. The question before us is whether the instructional error was prejudicial and thus requires reversal. The Court of Appeal, concluding Hendrix’s claim of mistake was not credible in any event, answered no. We reach a different conclusion. The instructional error effectively precluded the jury from giving full consideration to a mistake of fact claim that was supported by substantial evidence, where resolution of the issue was central to the question whether Hendrix possessed the criminal intent necessary for conviction. Whether that claim is credible is a
matter for a jury to decide. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings.

People v. Hendrix

S265668

Coming Monday

August 19, 2022 Comments off

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes

PEOPLE v. HENDRIX (ISAIAH)
S265668 (B298952; Ventura County Superior Court – 2017025915, 2018037331)
Argued in San Francisco 6-08-22
This case includes the following issue: Does the standard of People v. Watson
(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 or the standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 368 U.S. 818 apply
to error in instructing on the defense of mistake of fact?


MILTON (WILLIAM) ON HABEAS CORPUS
S259954 (B297354; Los Angeles County Superior Court – TA039953)
Argued in San Francisco 5-24-22
This case presents the following issue: Do the limitations of People v. Gallardo
(2017) 4 Cal.5th 120 on judicial fact-finding concerning the basis for a prior conviction
apply retroactively to final judgments? (Compare In re Milton (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 977
with In re Brown (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 699.)

No new criminal cases tomorrow

August 17, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow, Thursday.

No new criminal cases Monday

August 12, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new criminal cases Monday.

Death penalty affirmed

August 11, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case.

People v. Morelos

S051968

Coming tomorrow

August 10, 2022 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. MORELOS (VALDAMIR FRED)
S051968 (Santa Clara County Superior Court – 169362)
Argued in San Francisco 5-24-22
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

A finding defendant was a major participant isn’t fatal to an SB 1437 petition if made before new cases

August 8, 2022 Comments off

A finding defendant was a major participant isn’t fatal to an SB 1437 petition if made before new cases

People v. Strong

In this case, defendant Christopher Strong seeks
resentencing even though the jury that convicted him of felony
murder in 2014 also found true felony-murder specialcircumstance allegations that he was a “major participant” who
acted “with reckless indifference to human life” within the
meaning of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d). He
contends that the jury’s findings should not preclude him from
making a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief because the

findings were made before this court’s decisions in People v.
Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016)
63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark), which for the first time provided
substantial guidance on the meaning of the two relevant
statutory phrases. We agree. We reverse the contrary judgment
of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings.

Coming Monday

August 5, 2022 Comments off

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. STRONG (CHRISTOPHER)
S266606 (C091162; Sacramento County Superior Court – 11F06729)
Argued in San Francisco 5-24-22
This case presents the following issue: Does a felony-murder special circumstance
finding (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) made before People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th
788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 preclude a defendant from making a prima
facie showing of eligibility for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95?

No new criminal cases today

August 4, 2022 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new criminal cases today.