Mandatory supervision conditions evaluated the same way as probation conditions

July 29, 2021 Leave a comment

Mandatory supervision conditions evaluated the same way as probation conditions

The 2011 Realignment Act (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1;
Realignment Act or Act) provides for a period of mandatory
supervision following service of a county jail sentence for eligible
defendants. Here we consider how to assess the validity of a
challenged condition of such a release. We conclude that such
discretionary conditions are to be evaluated for reasonableness
on a case-by-case basis under the test set out in People v. Lent
(1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the Court of Appeal.

People v. Bryant

S259956

Coming tomorrow

July 28, 2021 Leave a comment

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. BRYANT (CLYDELL)
S259956 (B271300; Los Angeles County Superior Court – GA094777)
Argued in San Francisco 5-05-21
This case presents the following issue: Should the validity of a condition of
release on mandatory supervision be assessed under the standards applicable to
conditions of parole or the standards applicable to conditions of probation?

Court must appoint counsel for SB 1437

July 26, 2021 Leave a comment

People v. Lewis

S260598

Court must appoint counsel for SB 1437

Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015; Senate Bill
1437) eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for
murder and limited the scope of the felony murder rule. (Pen.
Code, §§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e), as amended by Senate
Bill 1437.) Senate Bill 1437 also added section 1170.95 to the
Penal Code,1 which creates a procedure for convicted murderers
who could not be convicted under the law as amended to
retroactively seek relief.
In this case, we are asked to decide two questions specific
to section 1170.95, subdivision (c): (1) may superior courts
consider the record of conviction in determining whether a
defendant has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for
relief?; and (2) when does the right to appointed counsel arise?
Here, the trial court considered the record of conviction
without appointing counsel and summarily denied defendant
Vince E. Lewis’s section 1170.95 petition. The Court of Appeal
concluded this procedure was proper. Contrary to the Court of
Appeal’s decision, we conclude that the statutory language and
legislative intent of section 1170.95 make clear that petitioners
are entitled to the appointment of counsel upon the filing of a
facially sufficient petition (see § 1170.95, subds. (b), (c)) and that

only after the appointment of counsel and the opportunity for
briefing may the superior court consider the record of conviction
to determine whether “the petitioner makes a prima facie
showing that he or she is entitled to relief.” (§ 1170.95, subd.
(c).)

Coming Monday

July 23, 2021 Leave a comment

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes

PEOPLE v. LEWIS (VINCE E.)
S260598 (B295998; Los Angeles County Superior Court – TA117431)
Argued in San Francisco 5-19-21
The court limited review to the following issues: (1) May superior courts
consider the record of conviction in determining whether a defendant has made a
prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95? (2)
When does the right to appointed counsel arise under Penal Code section 1170.95,
subdivision (c)?

No new cases tomorrow

July 21, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

No new cases Monday

July 16, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

Death Penalty affirmed

July 15, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case.

People v. Dworak

S135273

Coming tomorrow

July 14, 2021 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. DWORAK (DOUGLAS)
S135272 (Ventura County Superior Court – 2004016721)
Argued in San Francisco 5-05-21
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

No new criminal cases Monday

July 9, 2021 Comments off

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

No new cases this week

July 7, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases Monday and will issue no new cases tomorrow.

Gang crimes must be proved by evidence independent of a gang “expert”

July 1, 2021 Comments off

Gang crimes must be proved by evidence independent of a gang “expert”

People v. Valencia

S250218

This case involves allegations of active gang participation
(Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)) and gang enhancements (Pen.
Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)) attached to other offenses. The
charges require proof that a gang’s members have engaged in “a
pattern of criminal gang activity” (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd.
(f)), defined, in part, as the commission of two or more
enumerated offenses (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (e)). We hold
that the commission of such crimes, also known as predicate
offenses, must be proven by independently admissible evidence.
Under the authority of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665
(Sanchez), such proof may not be established solely by the
testimony of an expert who has no personal knowledge of facts
otherwise necessary to satisfy the prosecution’s burden. The
judgment of the Court of Appeal, reaching the same conclusion,
is affirmed.

Death penalty affirmed

July 1, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case.

People v. Battle

Coming tomorrow

June 30, 2021 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. BATTLE (THOMAS LEE)
S119296 (San Bernardino County Superior Court – FVI012605)
Argued in San Francisco 4-07-21
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.


PEOPLE v. VALENCIA (JOSE LUIS) and PEOPLE v. GARCIA (EDGAR ISIDRO)
S250218 (F072943; Kern County Superior Court – LF010246B)
S250670 (F073515; Kern County Superior Court – LF010246A)
Argued in San Francisco 4-07-21
Both cases present the following issue: Did defendant’s failure to object at trial, before
People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 was decided, forfeit his claim that a gang expert’s
testimony related case-specific hearsay in violation of his Sixth Amendment right of
confrontation?

SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITIONS PERMITTED BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE OR CHANGE IN THE LAW

June 28, 2021 Comments off

SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITIONS PERMITTED BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE OR CHANGE IN THE LAW

In re Friend

S256914

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S256914.PDF The traditional rules governing the handling of successive petitions have long distinguished between the presentation of newly available claims and the presentation of claims that could have been raised earlier; the law has traditionally limited only the latter, forbidding consideration of repetitive or pretermitted claims except in a few, narrowly defined circumstances. Proposition 66 modified these rules by further narrowing the circumstances under which courts may consider repetitive or pretermitted claims in capital cases. But properly understood, Proposition 66’s successiveness restrictions do not limit the consideration of claims that could not reasonably have been raised earlier, such as those based on newly available evidence or on recent changes in the law — claims that have not previously been thought subject to successiveness limitations. Thus, under the law as amended by Proposition 66, habeas corpus petitioners must make a showing of actual innocence or death ineligibility if they seek a second chance to make an argument they could have made earlier. No such requirement applies to the habeas petitioner who raises a newly available claim at the first opportunity.

Coming Monday

June 25, 2021 Comments off

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes

IN RE FRIEND (JACK WAYNE) ON HABEAS CORPUS
S256914 (A155955; Alameda County Superior Court – 81254A)
Argued in San Francisco 4-07-21
The court directed the parties to address the following issues: (1) Is the
dismissal of a condemned inmate’s habeas corpus petition pursuant to Penal Code
section 1509, subdivision (d) an appealable order and subject to the requirement of
obtaining a certificate of appealability under Penal Code section 1509.1, subdivision
(c), which applies to the “decision of the superior court denying relief on a successive
petition” (italics added)? (2) What is the meaning of the term “successive petition” in
Penal Code section 1509, subdivision (d), and is the habeas corpus petition at issue a
successive petition? (3) If the habeas corpus petition at issue is a successive petition
within the meaning of the statute, can the statutory provisions governing such
petitions be applied to this petition when petitioner’s first habeas corpus petition was
filed before the statutes too

No new cases today

June 24, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases today.

Furnishing drugs is insufficient for a great bodily injury enhancement

June 21, 2021 Comments off

Furnishing drugs is insufficient for a great bodily injury enhancement

People v. Ollo

S260130

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S260130.PDF Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a) provides that a defendant who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felony shall receive an additional three-year term of imprisonment following the prison term imposed for the underlying offense. In 2018, a Los Angeles County jury convicted defendant Treyvon Love Ollo of furnishing or giving a controlled substance to a minor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11353) and found true the allegation that Ollo had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the minor in the commission of the offense. The trial court imposed a nine-year prison sentence for the furnishing count, plus an additional three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding as a matter of law that furnishing drugs to a victim who later overdoses is sufficient for a great bodily injury enhancement. (People v. Ollo (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1158 (Ollo).)

We granted review to determine whether a defendant who furnishes a controlled substance “personally inflicts” great bodily injury whenever the person furnished with the drugs suffers such injury from using the drugs. (Pen. Code, § 12022.7; all undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) In other words, is a conviction for furnishing or giving a controlled substance sufficient as a matter of law to establish personal infliction of great bodily injury under section 12022.7? We hold that the act of furnishing is not by itself sufficient to establish personal infliction. Whether a defendant who furnishes drugs personally inflicts such injury depends on the facts of the particular case. To determine whether a defendant personally inflicts an injury, factfinders and courts must examine the circumstances of the underlying offense and the defendant’s role in causing the injury that followed.

Coming Monday

June 18, 2021 Comments off

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. OLLO (TREYVON)
S260130 (B290948; Los Angeles County Superior Court – KA115677)
Argued in San Francisco 4-07-21
This case presents the following issue: Did the deceased victim’s voluntary
ingestion of fentanyl furnished by the defendant in the belief that it was cocaine
support imposition of an enhancement for the personal infliction of great bodily injury
(Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a))?

Probation violation means case isn’t final

June 17, 2021 Comments off

Probation violation means case isn’t final

When new legislation reduces the punishment for an
offense, we presume that the legislation applies to all cases not
yet final as of the legislation’s effective date. (In re Estrada
(1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada).) A case in which a defendant is
placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended is
not yet final for this purpose if the defendant may still timely
obtain direct review of an order revoking probation and
imposing sentence. (People v. McKenzie (2020) 9 Cal.5th 40
(McKenzie).) We hold that a case in which a defendant is placed
on probation with execution of an imposed state prison sentence
suspended is not yet final for this purpose if the defendant may
still timely obtain direct review of an order revoking probation
and causing the state prison sentence to take effect.

People v. Esquivel

S262551

Coming tomorrow

June 16, 2021 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. ESQUIVEL (RANDOLPH STEVEN)
S262551 (B294024; Los Angeles County Superior Court – NA102362)
Argued in San Francisco 5-05-21
The court limited review to the following issue: Is the judgment in a criminal
case considered final for purposes of applying a later ameliorative change in the law
when probation is granted and execution of sentence is suspended, or only upon
revocation of probation when the suspended sentence is ordered into effect?

No new cases Monday

June 4, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases tomorrow

June 2, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

No cases filed yesterday

June 1, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases yesterday.

JURY INSTRUCTION ON CERTAINTY IN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION IS NOT TO BE GIVEN

May 27, 2021 Comments off

JURY INSTRUCTION ON CERTAINTY IN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION IS NOT TO BE GIVEN

People v. Lemke

S250108

Despite the absence of a constitutional violation, we nonetheless agree with amici curiae that a reevaluation of the certainty instruction is warranted. Contrary to widespread lay belief, there is now near unanimity in the empirical research that “eyewitness confidence is generally an unreliable indicator of accuracy.” (State v. Henderson (N.J. 2011) 27 A.3d 872, 899 (Henderson); see Commonwealth v. Gomes (Mass. 2015) 22 N.E.3d 897, 912–913 (Gomes); State v. Guilbert (Conn. 2012) 49 A.3d 705, 721–723 (Guilbert); State v. Lawson (Or. 2012) 291 P.3d 673, 704 (Lawson).) As currently worded, CALCRIM No. 315 does nothing to disabuse jurors of that common misconception, but rather tends to reinforce it by implying that an identification is more likely to be reliable when the witness has expressed certainty. This is especially problematic because many studies have also shown eyewitness confidence is the single most influential factor in juror determinations regarding the accuracy of an identification. (See Lawson, at pp. 704–705.) Given the significance that witness certainty plays in the factfinding process, we refer the matter to the Judicial Council and its Advisory Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions to evaluate whether or how the instruction might be modified to avoid juror confusion regarding the correlation between certainty and accuracy. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(d).) Acting pursuant to our supervisory powers, we further direct that until the Judicial Council has completed its evaluation, trial courts should omit the certainty factor from CALCRIM No. 315 unless the defendant requests otherwise.

Coming tomorrow

May 26, 2021 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. LEMKE (DESIRAE) et al.
S250108 (G054241; Orange County Superior Court – 14CF3596)
Argued in San Francisco 3-02-21
This case presents the following issue: Does instructing a jury with CALCRIM No.
315 that an eyewitness’s level of certainty can be considered when evaluating the reliability of
the identification violate a defendant’s due process rights?