No new cases tomorrow

March 3, 2021 Leave a comment

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

No new cases Monday

February 26, 2021 Leave a comment

The Cal. Surpremes will issue no new cases Monday.

SB1391, barring transfers of 14 and 15 year olds to adult court, is constitutional

February 25, 2021 Leave a comment

SB1391, barring transfers of 14 and 15 year olds to adult court, is constitutional

O.G. v. Superior Court

S259011

Proposition 57, passed in the November 2016 general
election (Proposition 57), requires prosecutors to commence all
cases involving a minor in juvenile court. “Proposition 57 is an
‘ameliorative change[] to the criminal law’ ” that “the legislative
body intended ‘to extend as broadly as possible.’ ” (People v.
Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 299, 309 (Lara).)
Proposition 57 expressly allowed for amendments that “are
consistent with and further the intent of this act . . . .” (Voter
Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop. 57, §
5, p. 145 (2016 Voter Guide).) As originally enacted, Proposition
57 allowed prosecutors to move to transfer some minors as
young as 14 from juvenile court to adult criminal court. Senate
Bill No. 1391 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1391), enacted
in 2018, amended Proposition 57 to prohibit minors under the
age of 16 from being transferred to adult criminal court. (See
Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(1)–(2), as amended by Stats.
2018, ch. 1012, § 1.)
In this case, the Court of Appeal held that Senate Bill 1391
is inconsistent with Proposition 57 and thus invalid (O.G. v.
Superior Court (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 626, 629), a holding at
odds with every other Court of Appeal opinion to have addressed
the issue. We agree with the majority view that Senate Bill 1391
was a permissible amendment to Proposition 57 and we reverse
the judgment in this case. Because Proposition 57 expressly
permits legislative amendments, we must presume the
Legislature acted within its authority and uphold Senate Bill
1391 “if, by any reasonable construction, it can be said that the
statute” is consistent with and furthers the intent of
Proposition 57. (Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson (1995) 11
Cal.4th 1243, 1256 (Amwest).) While barring the transfer of 14
and 15 year olds to adult court is a change from Proposition 57’s
statutory provisions, that change is what makes Senate Bill
1391 an amendment to Proposition 57. The amendment is fully
consistent with and furthers Proposition 57’s fundamental
purposes of promoting rehabilitation of youthful offenders and
reducing the prison population. We therefore uphold Senate Bill
1391 as a permissible amendment to Proposition 57.

Coming tomorrow

February 24, 2021 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes

O.G. a Minor, etc. v. SUPERIOR COURT (PEOPLE)
S259011 (B295555; Ventura County Superior Court – 2018017144)
Argued in San Francisco 12-01-20
This case presents the following issue: Did Senate Bill No. 1391 (Stats. 2018,
ch. 1012), which eliminated the possibility of transfer to adult criminal court for
crimes committed when a minor was 14 or 15 years old, unconstitutionally amend
Proposition 57?

No new cases Monday

February 19, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No cases today

February 18, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases today.

Death penalty affirmed

February 11, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case.

People v. Chhoun

S084996

Coming tomorrow

February 10, 2021 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. CHHOUN (RUN PETER)
S084996 (San Bernardino County Superior Court – FSB08658)
Argued in San Francisco 12-01-20
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

No new cases Monday

February 5, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases tomorrow

February 3, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

Another death penalty affirmed

February 1, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty verdict

People v. Baker

S040704

Another death penalty affirmed

February 1, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty verdict

People v. Johnsen

S040704

Coming Monday

January 29, 2021 Comments off

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. BAKER (PAUL WESLEY)
S170280 (Los Angeles County Superior Court – LA045977)
Argued in San Francisco 11-03-20
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.


PEOPLE v. JOHNSEN (BRIAN DAVID)
S040704 (Stanislaus County Superior Court – R239682)
Argued in San Francisco 11-03-20
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

Habeas relief is available to inmate denied parole if continued incarceration has become constitutionally excessive

January 28, 2021 Comments off

Habeas relief is available to inmate denied parole if continued incarceration has become constitutionally excessive

In re Palmer

S256149

“We agree with the Court of Appeal that habeas corpus
relief is available to inmates whose continued incarceration has
become constitutionally excessive, but who have been denied
release by the Board. To the extent Palmer’s continued
incarceration at some point became constitutionally excessive,
though, that alone did not justify ending his parole under the
current statutory scheme. We therefore reverse the judgment
of the Court of Appeal.”

Death penalty affirmed

January 28, 2021 2 comments

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case.

People v. Ramirez

S1551160

Coming tomorrow

January 27, 2021 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes

IN RE PALMER (WILLIAM M.) II ON HABEAS CORPUS
S256149 (A154269; Riverside County Superior Court – CR29074)
Argued in San Francisco 11-03-20
The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Did this life prisoner’s
continued confinement become constitutionally disproportionate under article I,
section 17 of the California Constitution and/or the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution? (2) If this life prisoner’s continued confinement became
constitutionally disproportionate, what is the proper remedy?


PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ (IRVING ALEXANDER)
S155160 (Alameda County Superior Court – 151080)
Argued in San Francisco 11-03-20
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

No new cases Monday

January 22, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases today

January 21, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases today.

No new criminal cases tomorrow

January 13, 2021 Comments off

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

No new cases Monday

January 8, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases tomorrow

January 6, 2021 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

CDCR exclusion from Prop. 57 parole of all inmates convicted of a registrable sex offense is improper

December 28, 2020 Comments off

CDCR exclusion from Prop. 57 parole of all inmates convicted of a registrable sex offense is improper

The Department asserts it is authorized by article I,
section 32(b) to exclude from nonviolent offender parole
consideration all inmates convicted of a registerable sex offense,
regardless of whether that offense is defined by the regulations
as a nonviolent felony and regardless of whether the inmate is
currently incarcerated for that conviction. Indeed, the
Department’s regulations categorize inmates convicted of a
registerable sex offense as “nonviolent offenders” unless, among
other criteria, they are currently incarcerated for a violent
felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c). (Cal.
Code Regs., §§ 3490, subd. (a), 3491, subds. (a), (b), 3495,
subd. (a), 3496, subds. (a), (b).) Nonetheless, the regulations
entirely exclude from nonviolent offender parole consideration
inmates previously convicted or currently convicted of any
registerable sex offense. We conclude that this categorical
exclusion conflicts with the constitutional directive that inmates
“convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state
prison shall be eligible for parole consideration.” (Art. I,
§ 32(a)(1).)

We therefore hold that nonviolent offender parole
eligibility must be based on an inmate’s current conviction. We
further hold that an inmate may not be excluded from
nonviolent offender parole consideration based on a current
conviction for a registerable felony offense that the
Department’s regulations have defined as nonviolent. The
regulatory provisions at issue here are inconsistent with the
language of article I, section 32(a)(1) and cannot stand. We
direct the Department to treat as void and repeal California
Code of Regulations, section 3491, subdivision (b)(3), and section
3496, subdivision (b), and to make any further conforming
changes necessary to render the regulations consistent with
article I, section 32(a)(1) and this opinion.

In re Gadlin

S254599

Human Trafficking of a Minor Doesn’t Require the Victim to Actually Be a Minor

December 28, 2020 Comments off

Human Trafficking of a Minor Doesn’t Require the Victim to Actually Be a Minor

Penal Code section 236.1, subdivision (c)1 prohibits the
human trafficking of a minor. It includes an attempt to commit
trafficking as part of the definition of the substantive offense.
Here we consider the attempt aspect of the definition.
Defendant Antonio Chavez Moses III was convicted of
attempting to recruit “Bella” as a prostitute. Bella had
identified herself to Moses as a 17-year-old girl, but was, in fact,
an undercover detective. The question here is whether, in light
of the statutory language, he can be convicted of an attempt
under the trafficking statute. We conclude that he can, based
on this state’s long-standing application of attempt law.

People v. Moses

S258143

No new criminal cases tomorrow

December 23, 2020 Comments off

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

No new cases Monday

December 18, 2020 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.