Coming Monday

December 2, 2016 Leave a comment

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes:
PEOPLE v. MACABEO (PAUL)
S221852 (B248316; Los Angeles County Superior Court – YA084963)
Argued in San Francisco 5-05-16

This case presents the following issues: (1) May law enforcement officers conduct a search incident to the authority to arrest for a minor traffic offense, so long as a custodial arrest (even for an unrelated crime) follows? (2) Did Riley v. California (2014) ___ U.S. ___ [134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430] require the exclusion of evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the suspect’s cell phone incident to arrest, or did the search fall within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule (see Davis v. United States (2011) 564 U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285]) in light of People v. Diaz (2011) 51 Cal.4th 84?

PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (GEORGE), JR.
S131819 (San Diego County Superior Court – SCD-172678)
Argued in San Francisco 9-07-16

This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

Coming tomorrow

November 30, 2016 Leave a comment

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. THOMPSON (CATHERINE)
S033901 (Los Angeles County Superior Court – SA004363)
Argued in San Francisco 9-07-16

This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

No new cases last Thursday or today

November 28, 2016 Leave a comment

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases last Thursday or today.

No new criminal cases Monday

November 18, 2016 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new criminal cases Monday.  And I’m pretty sure that they won’t issue any new cases at all on Thursday.

No new cases today

November 17, 2016 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases today.

No new criminal cases today

November 14, 2016 Comments off

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

DA Not Entitled to Vacate Plea Bargain when Prop. 47 Relief Granted

November 14, 2016 Comments off

DA Not Entitled to Vacate Plea Bargain when Prop. 47 Relief Granted

 

Charged with robbery, petitioner Morris Glen Harris, Jr. (hereafter defendant), pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to grand theft from the person, a felony, and admitted a prior robbery conviction, on condition that he receive a six-year prison sentence.  In return, the People dismissed the robbery charge and allegations of other felony convictions.  The court imposed the six-year sentence.  Later, the electorate enacted Proposition 47, which reduced the grand theft offense to a misdemeanor.  Under Proposition 47’s provisions, defendant petitioned the court to have his sentence recalled and to be resentenced as a misdemeanant.  In response, the People argued that reducing the sentence would deprive them of the benefit of their plea bargain, and thus they should be permitted to rescind the plea and reinstate the original robbery charge.  The trial court agreed with the People, as did a divided Court of Appeal.

We must decide whether the People are entitled to have the plea agreement set aside if defendant seeks to have his sentence recalled under Proposition 47.  We conclude that they are not entitled to have the plea agreement set aside.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Harris v. Superior Court

S231489

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S231489.PDF