Archive
Coming Monday
Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes:
PEOPLE v. HOMICK (STEVEN)
S044592 (Los Angeles County Superior Court – A973541)
Argued in San Francisco 9-06-12
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
RICHARDS (WILLIAM) ON HABEAS CORPUS
S189275 (E049135; San Bernardino County Superior Court – SWHSS700444)
Argued in San Francisco 9-05-12
This case presents the following issues: (1) When a petitioner seeks relief on habeas corpus because an expert witness who testified at trial later fundamentally alters the opinion he or she rendered, should this be viewed as a claim that false evidence substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt was presented at trial or as a claim that newly discovered evidence casts “fundamental doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the proceedings” and “undermine[s] the entire prosecution case and point[s] unerringly to innocence or reduced culpability”? (In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1016.) (2) Is petitioner entitled to relief on either ground in this case? (3) Is petitioner entitled to habeas corpus relief based on newly discovered DNA evidence?
PEOPLE v. SCHMITZ (DOUGLAS)
S186707 (G040641; Orange County Superior Court – 06HF2342)
Argued in San Francisco 9-05-12
This case presents the following issue: When conducting a vehicle search authorized by a passenger’s parole condition, can the police search any areas of the vehicle’s interior that appear reasonably accessible to the passenger?
Junk science case argued to the Cal. Supremes
Today’s LA Times has an article about a case argued in September to the California Supreme Court on junk science, specifically, bite mark evidence, now discredited, which was used to convict. Here’s the link to the story.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-murder-20121121,0,1272558.story
The court actually posts the briefing in cases after the oral argument in the case. So all the briefing in this case, named Richards, is on line and available to read or print off. Here’s the link to that:
No criminal cases today
The Cal. Supremes will not issue any criminal cases today, Monday.
Possession of two firearms permits two convictions but not four
Possession of two firearms permits two convictions but not four
We hold that neither section 12021.1(a) nor section 12021(a)(1) is a necessarily included offense of the other. Accordingly, under section 954, defendant was properly convicted of both offenses.
Applying our recent decisions in Correa, supra, 54 Cal.4th 331, and People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, we further hold that defendant may be separately punished for two violations of section 12021(a)(1) and of section 12021.1(a) based on his simultaneous possession of two firearms. However, he may not also be separately punished for violations of section 12021(a)(1) and section 12021.1(a) based on possession of the same firearm.
Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes
Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes:
People v. Sanders (Maurice D.)
S191341 (F059287; Kern County Superior Court – BF126309A)
Argued in San Francisco 10-02-12
The court limited review to the following issues:
(1) Is possession of a firearm after conviction of a specified violent offense (Pen. Code, § 12021.1, subd. (a)) a necessarily included offense of possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1))?
(2) Was defendant properly sentenced to concurrent terms for his simultaneous possession of two firearms in violation of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1)?
No opinions Thursday
In an apparent pre-Thanksgiving slump, the Cal. Supremes are not going to issue any opinions tomorrow.
No opinions Monday
The Cal. Supremes are taking Monday off; no opinions will be issued Monday.
No opinions tomorrow
The Cal. Supremes won’t issue any new opinions tomorrow.
Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of October 29, 2012
Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of October 29, 2012
#12-111
People v. Schaeffer, S205260. (E053499; 208 Cal.App.4th 1; Riverside County Superior Court; RIF1102208.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal remanded in part and otherwise affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. This case presents the following issue: In a case involving possession of drugs and misdemeanor drug use, could the trial court, as a condition of probation, require defendant to “[r]eside at a residence approved by the Probation Officer and not move without his/her prior approval”?
Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of October 8, 2012
Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of October 8, 2012
#12-102
People v. Palmer, S204409. (H036979; nonpublished opinion; Santa Clara County Superior Court; C1094540.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense.
The court limited review to the following issues:
(1) Is a claim that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for defendant’s plea within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.5 not cognizable on appeal where defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea?
(2) If the claim is cognizable, did defense counsel’s bare stipulation to a factual basis without reference to any document describing the facts sufficiently establish a factual basis?
The trial court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on simple assault as a lesser-included offense within PC 273ab
The trial court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on simple assault as a lesser-included offense within PC 273ab
A jury convicted defendant of involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code § 192, subd. (b)) and assault on a child causing death (§ 273ab). As relevant here, the Court of Appeal reversed the section 273ab conviction upon finding the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on simple assault as a lesser included offense. We conclude there was no error.
Such instructions are required only when there is substantial evidence that, if the defendant is guilty at all, he is guilty of the lesser offense, but not the greater. (Ibid.; People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 813.) “ ‘ “ ‘Substantial evidence’ in this context is ‘ “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . . conclude[]” ’ that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.” ’ [Citation.]” (Huggins, at p. 215.) Here, it would be speculative at best to construe the trial evidence in this case as supporting a verdict of only simple assault. (See People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 174.) Accordingly, the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct on that lesser offense.
Opinion to be issued Monday
Opinion to be issued Monday
People v. Wyatt (Reginald)
S189786 (A114612; Alameda County Superior Court – C147107)
Argued in San Francisco 9-05-12
This case presents the following issue: Did the trial court prejudicially err by failing to instruct the jury on the court’s own motion regarding simple assault (Pen. Code, § 240) as a lesser included offense of assault on a child by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, resulting in death (Pen. Code, § 273ab, subd. (a))
California Supreme Court Criminal Law Blog 