Archive for November, 2014

No new cases Monday

November 21, 2014 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new opinions Monday.


Aiders can be liable for killings of co-defendants

November 20, 2014 Comments off

Aiders can be liable for killings of co-defendants

People v. Smith


“A person who aids and abets a crime is guilty of that crime, sometimes called the target crime. Additionally, that person is guilty of any other crime a principal in the target crime commits, sometimes called the nontarget crime, that is a natural and probable consequence of the target crime. In this case involving violent criminal street gangs, we must decide whether defendant was properly convicted of the murders of two of his fellow gang members even though he neither personally killed them nor desired their deaths. Because, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, a reasonable jury could find that a principal or principals in the target crimes committed the murders, and they were a reasonably foreseeable consequence when defendant aided and abetted the target crimes, we conclude that he was properly convicted of them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reached a similar conclusion.”

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes

November 19, 2014 Comments off

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:



S210898 (D060317; Riverside County Superior Court – BAF004719)

Argued in San Francisco 10-07-14


The court limited review to the following issue: Was defendant properly convicted of murder under the natural and probable consequences theory of aiding and abetting?

No new cases Monday

November 14, 2014 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases today

November 13, 2014 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases today.

No new cases Monday

November 7, 2014 Comments off

There will be no new cases Monday from the Cal. Supremes.

Finding an inmate is ineligible for Prop. 36 relief is appealable

November 6, 2014 Comments off

Finding an inmate is ineligible for Prop. 36 relief is appealable

Teal v. Superior Court


“On November 6, 2012, the California electorate approved Proposition 36, otherwise known as the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), which became effective the next day. Before the Act’s passage, the Three Strikes law provided that a recidivist offender with two or more qualifying strikes was subject to an indeterminate life sentence if the offender was convicted for any new felony offense. (See People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 167-168.) The Act amended the Three Strikes law so that an indeterminate life sentence may only be imposed where the offender’s third strike is a serious and/or violent felony or where the offender is not eligible for a determinate sentence based on other disqualifying factors. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C).)The Act also enacted section 1170.126, establishing a procedure for an offender serving an indeterminate life sentence for a third strike conviction that is not defined as a serious and/or violent felony to file a petition for recall of sentence. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).)

“In this case, petitioner Bennie Jay Teal filed a petition for recall of his sentence. Finding that his current offense was a serious felony, the trial court denied the petition. The issue before us is whether the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition for recall of sentence on the ground he failed to meet the threshold eligibility requirement (§ 1170.126, subd. (b)) is an appealable order (§ 1237, subd. (b)). We conclude that the trial court’s denial of the petition for recall is an appealable order.”