Archive

Archive for October, 2015

No new cases Monday

October 30, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No new cases tomorrow

October 28, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

The Supremes affirm another death penalty case

October 26, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirm another death penalty case:

People v. Cordova

S152737

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S152737.PDF

Coming Monday

October 23, 2015 Comments off

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes:

 

PEOPLE v. CORDOVA (JOSEPH SEFERINO)

S152737 (Contra Costa County Superior Court – 040292-5)

Argued in San Francisco 9-02-15

 

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

No cases today

October 22, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases today.

No new cases Monday

October 16, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

Giving the jury an instruction on a lesser-related offense is the equivalent of filing that charge, for Kellett purposes

October 15, 2015 Comments off

Giving the jury an instruction on a lesser-related offense is the equivalent of filing that charge, for Kellett purposes

People v. Goolsby

S216648

A jury convicted defendant, Richard James Goolsby, of violating Penal Code section 451, subdivision (b), which proscribes arson of “an inhabited structure or inhabited property.”  Because of the way the case was charged, the Court of Appeal found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction, which precludes retrial of that charge. The question before us is whether defendant can be retried for the lesser related offense of arson of property under section 451, subdivision (d), without violating section 654, as interpreted in Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822 (Kellett). Kellett viewed section 654 as generally requiring all offenses involving the same act or course of conduct to be prosecuted in a single proceeding.

The prosecution did not charge defendant with arson of property, but the court instructed the jury on it. However, erroneously believing that arson of property is a lesser included offense of the charged crime, the court instructed the jury to reach a verdict on that offense only if it acquitted defendant of the greater offense. Accordingly, the jury did not reach a verdict on the arson of property charge.

We conclude that, under these circumstances, the lesser offense of arson of property was prosecuted in a single proceeding along with the section 451, subdivision (b), charge and, accordingly, that section 654 does not prohibit retrying defendant for that lesser offense. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had concluded that the entire case must be dismissed.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S216648.PDF