Archive

Archive for April, 2013

No new case today

April 29, 2013 Comments off

There is no new case today, Monday, from the Cal. Supremes

Advertisements

No new cases tomorrow

April 24, 2013 Comments off

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

Failure to contest a booking free waives any challenge to the fee on appeal

April 22, 2013 Comments off

Failure to contest a booking free waives any challenge to the fee on appeal

 

People v. McCullough; S192513:

“…a defendant who fails to contest the booking fee when the court imposes it forfeits the right to challenge it on appeal.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S192513.PDF

A person who intentionally aids a parolee in absconding is an accessory after the fact.

April 22, 2013 Comments off

A person who intentionally aids a parolee in absconding is an accessory after the fact.

People v. Nuckles, S200612:

“An accessory is a person ‘who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof . . . .’  (Pen. Code, § 32, italics added.)  Here, we conclude that a person who intentionally aids a parolee in absconding from parole supervision qualifies as an accessory.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S200612.PDF

Cases coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes

April 19, 2013 Comments off

Coming Monday:

PEOPLE v. McCULLOUGH (ANTOINE)

S192513

(C064982; Sacramento County Superior Court – 09F08232)

Argued in San Francisco 2-06-13

This case presents the following issue:

Did defendant forfeit his claim that he was unable to pay the $270.17 jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2) imposed by the trial court at sentencing, because he failed to object at the time?

PEOPLE v. NUCKLES (JANE)

S200612

(F061562; Kings County Superior Court – 09CM3022)

Argued in San Francisco 2-06-13

This case presents the following issue:

Was defendant properly convicted of being an accessory to a felony for assisting another person to abscond from his parole term after serving his sentence for that felony?

Proper Indicated Sentences versus improper judicial plea bargaining

April 18, 2013 Comments off

Proper Indicated Sentences versus improper judicial plea bargaining

People v. Clancy

S200158

“We conclude that the record is ambiguous as to whether the sentence proposed by the trial court reflected what it believed was the appropriate punishment for this defendant and these offenses, regardless of whether defendant was convicted by plea or following trial, or instead reflected what it believed was necessary to induce defendant to enter a plea.  We therefore affirm in part the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the matter to the trial court to clarify the ambiguity (see People v. Superior Court (Felmann) (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 270, 277-278) and, if it reinstates the judgment, to recalculate defendant’s presentence conduct credits.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S200158.PDF

The jury must be asked if they have agreed to a verdict. Failure to do so is not structural error.

April 15, 2013 Comments off

The jury must be asked if they have agreed to a verdict.  Failure to do so is not structural error.

People v. Anzalone

S192536

Penal Code section 1149 provides, “When the jury appear they must be asked by the Court, or Clerk, whether they have agreed upon their verdict, and if the foreman answers in the affirmative, they must, on being required, declare the same.” Here, the court failed to follow this mandated procedure.  The case turns on whether the error is structural error, and thus reversible per se, or trial error subject to harmless error review.  For the reasons set forth below, the error was not structural.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S192536.PDF