Skip to content
Name: In re Prather
Case #: S172903
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/29/2010

When a court directs the Parole Board to conduct a new parole-suitability hearing, the court should not improperly limit the type of evidence the board is statutorily obliged to consider. The Supreme Court granted review to settle a split among the appellate courts as to what action a reviewing court could order the Parole Board to take when it grants a new parole-suitability hearing. The court held is improper for the reviewing court to order the board to consider only a limited category of evidence in making its finding. Specifically, the reviewing court should not order the board…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Yokely
Case #: B213003
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/15/2010

Following reversal and remand, on retrial, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case do not preclude the presentation of new evidence on a motion to suppress an in-court identification if the issue raised on remand does not concern that initially presented. Appellant was convicted of murder and attempted murder resulting from a drive-by shooting. A federal district court granted appellant's habeas petition, finding his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated by introduction of an identification made at a line-up where counsel was not present. On retrial, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Anderson
Case #: A118000
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/17/2008

An appellate court ruling on a suppression motion must be adhered to on remand unless the evidence presented raises material factual or legal issues not considered by the original trial judge or creates the realistic possibility that the factual findings of that judge were in error. Following conviction at this second murder trial resulting from an appellate remand based on instructional error, appellant contended that the trial court erred by denying her a de novo evidentiary hearing relative to her suppression motion, instead allowing her to offer only the additional evidence not presented at the first hearing. The appellate court…

View Full Summary
Name: C.C. v. Superior Court
Case #: G040580
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/11/2008

Civil Procedure Code section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2), which allows a challenge to a judge following reversal on appeal, applies only where the remand requires reexamination of a factual or legal issue, and not where the remand is for the performance of a ministerial act. After the Court of Appeal reversed an order in a juvenile dependency case and "directed the juvenile court to enter a new order denying reunification services ... and to set a permanent plan selection hearing," the attorney of one of the children filed a peremptory challenge to the judge. The judge recused himself in both children's cases to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McEwan
Case #: B193724
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/30/2007

On appeal from a superior court judgment following a guilty or no contest plea, a defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5, unless the notice of appeal states that the plea is from the denial of a Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress or is based on grounds that arose after the entry of the plea and do not challenge the plea’s validity. Here, defendant filed the standard notice of appeal form with check marks on the boxes indicating that (1) the appeal was from a guilty or no contest plea,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Barragan
Case #: S105734
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 01/29/2004
Subsequent History: None

Due process concerns do not bar retrial of a strike allegation that has been overturned on appeal due to insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal reversed the finding that the defendant had suffered a prior juvenile adjudication that constituted a serious or violent felony, on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the adjudication resulted in a declaration of wardship. Holding that retrial of the allegation was permissible, the Supreme Court first noted that under Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, retrial of a prior conviction does not violate the double jeopardy clause. …

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Burbine
Case #: A096825
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/12/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 6/11/03

Appellant’s case was remanded for resentencing in an earlier appeal because one of the counts of conviction was invalid based on an erroneous jury instruction. At resentencing, the judge listed the materials he had reviewed in preparation for the hearing, and did not mention the letters submitted in mitigation. Appellant’s counsel did not mention them either. The judge resentenced appellant to the same term originally imposed, but reached the result by a different route. (An upper term on another count in lieu of a midterm previously imposed.) On appeal, he argued that he should not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Scott
Case #: B131005
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/21/2000
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 4/11/01

Following a reversal of a prior conviction for insufficiency of the evidence, a retrial on the prior conviction allegation is not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case, and the new evidence to be presented need not be newly discovered. Distinguishing People v. Mitchell (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 132 as factually dissimilar and, in any event, incorrectly decided, the Court of Appeal applied People v. Morton (1953) 41 Cal.2d 536, under the doctrine of stare decisis, to conclude that there had been no prior adjudication of evidentiary insufficiency to which res judicata or collateral estoppel could…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kraft
Case #: S013187
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/10/2000
Subsequent History: Rehearing denied 10/18/00

In a capital prosecution, the trial court did not err when it denied appellant's motion to sever 16 homicide counts and try them separately in 16 trials. Most of the evidence on the various charges was cross-admissible. The fact that the murders were not committed in exactly the same way did not preclude cross-admissibility. The motion to suppress evidence seized from appellant's house, car, and business was properly denied. Appellant was stopped by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for driving on the shoulder of the road. The detention was not unduly prolonged, given that the…

View Full Summary
Name: Cherry v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Case #: B144293
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 02/07/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 5/2/01

Res judicata, law of the case, and double jeopardy do not, singularly or in combination, preclude a new trial on the issue of whether appellant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon in committing the crime underlying his prior conviction for assault under Penal Code sections 245, subdivision (a)(2), and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23). Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, does not supersede Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, but recognizes prior convictions as an exception to be the double jeopardy bar. Explicitly declining to follow People v. Mitchell (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 132, because there on…

View Full Summary