Case Summaries

Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was not infringed when he did not personally waive his right to a jury trial in a MDO extension hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 2970. Trial counsel's waiver on appellant's behalf was…

A California attorney represented both Christakis, who had been indicted in a drug conspiracy, and DiCesare, who Christakis claimed was an unindicted co-conspirator. On appeal, Christakis claimed that the lawyer's advocacy was adversely affected by his interest in keeping DiCesare…

Appellant was improperly convicted of auto burglary where he gained access to the vehicle's trunk by opening an unlocked passenger door and lifting a trunk latch to open it. Auto burglary can only be committed by entering a locked vehicle…

Appellant was properly sentenced under the Three Strikes law to two consecutive life-term sentences for one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon where the offenses were not committed on the same…

Appellant was convicted of carrying a loaded firearm while an active member of a criminal street gang, in violation of Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (a)(2)(C). An allegation pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b), for committing the offense with the…

Penal Code section 12022.53, the "10-20-life" law, which applies to offenders who use a firearm in perpetration of their offenses, does not violate due process and equal protection provisions because it punishes offenders more seriously based on their deadly weapon…

The court properly imposed two sentence enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53 for the two victims shot by appellant. Under the plain meaning rule of statutory construction, section 12022.53 presents no ambiguity as to the Legislature's intent to apply a…

Appellant was properly convicted of a violation the prohibition against hate crimes in Penal Code section 422.6 for writing "Nigger" on the classroom door of the only African-American teacher, and "Kill the Niggers" on the music building of his public…

Editor's Note: Review granted. An in-prison jury trial does not in itself establish that the trial was unfair. Appellant failed to show prejudice resulting from the location of the trial. The trial, for battery by an inmate on a correctional…

Editor's Note: Review granted. The trial court did not err by failing to advise appellant, who represented himself at the trial, about his right not to testify. Although appellant had the right not to testify, any error in failing to…

The sentences imposed on the defendants did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the constitution and the basic test set forth in People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441. However, the appellate court here urged the California Supreme Court…

Appellant was properly sentenced under the Three Strikes law to two consecutive life-term sentences for one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon where the offenses were not committed on the same…

The California Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in finding inadmissible evidence consisting of the deceased's journal, and petitioner's testimony regarding the effect reading it had on her. Here, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and…

The California Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in finding inadmissible evidence consisting of the deceased's journal, and petitioner's testimony regarding the effect reading it had on her. Here, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and…

Where appellant was convicted of two counts of rape for actively raping the victim himself, and for aiding and abetting the rape of the victim by another man, the Court of Appeal held that this was sufficient to meet the…

Where appellant was convicted of two counts of rape for actively raping the victim himself, and for aiding and abetting the rape of the victim by another man, the Court of Appeal held that this was sufficient to meet the…

The trial court erred here in sentencing appellant under the "one strike" law based on appellant's conviction of Penal Code section 288.5, continuous sexual abuse of a child, because that offense is not one of the enumerated sexual offenses set…

The Court of Appeal here granted a psychotherapist's writ to vacate the trial court's order releasing his files relating to two patients to the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs. Here, a pharmacist had filed a complaint with…

Where prior recorded testimony is admissible, its use does not violate the confrontation clause of the federal and state constitutions if the witness is unavailable and the prosecution has shown that it made a "good-faith effort" to obtain the presence…

The trial court erred here in sentencing appellant under the "one strike" law based on appellant's conviction of Penal Code section 288.5, continuous sexual abuse of a child, because that offense is not one of the enumerated sexual offenses set…

[Appellant's due process rights were not violated when the state of Washington compelled disclosure to the prosecution and the jury of the evaluation of a psychiatrist who was not called as a witness by the defense. Appellant was examined by…

Appellant's due process rights were not violated when the state of Washington compelled disclosure to the prosecution and the jury of the evaluation of a psychiatrist who was not called as a witness by the defense. Appellant was examined by…

The fact that one coconspirator is acquitted does not require the reversal of a conviction for a remaining coconspirator. The so-called "rule of consistency" is a vestige of the past with no continuing validity. As long as substantial evidence supports…

Ineligibility for probation under Penal Code section 1203, subdivision(e)(2) for use of a deadly weapon requires that the defendant have personally used the deadly weapon.

In this case the United States Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Washington state's sexually violent predator law, which Seling challenged as being punitive "as applied" to him in violation of the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses of…

In this case the United States Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Washington state's sexually violent predator law, which Seling challenged as being punitive "as applied" to him in violation of the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses of…

Under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 435, appellant's rights were violated where appellant said he did not want to talk to officers, but officers persisted in questioning him about his motivations for remaining silent. The officers' questions were designed…

Editor's Note: Review granted. There was insufficient evidence of burglary where appellant removed the screen from the window of the victim's home, but did not succeed in prying the window open. No part of appellant's body was inside the premises,…

Editor's Note: Review granted. There was insufficient evidence of burglary where appellant removed the screen from the window of the victim's home, but did not succeed in prying the window open. No part of appellant's body was inside the premises,…

Where the trial court imposes a restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), but omits or imposes an erroneous parole revocation fine, appellate courts may correct this error even though the People failed to object at sentencing. Here,…