Due Process

Name: Jordan v. Superior Court
Case #: A174922
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/30/2026

After a defendant is found incompetent and placed on an outpatient treatment program, due process does not require a full evidentiary hearing for every PC 1608 revocation. The conditional release program petitioned to revoke defendant's outpatient status based on noncompliance, and the trial court transferred petitioner to the Department of State Hospitals without a full evidentiary hearing. Although now moot, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue as capable of repetition yet evading review. Applying the Mathews balancing test, the Court reasoned that written clinical reports reduce the risk of error and that the government’s interest in timely competency restoration,…

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of E.A.
Case #: S287241
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 07/23/2026

One year delay of conservatorship trial was a denial of due process, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A trial on the issue of grave disability must commence within ten days of its demand. Here, the jury trial was delayed almost a year. Applying the four-factor test in Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, the California Supreme Court found that E.A. was denied due process. However, the denial was harmless because there was no reasonable doubt that the trial court would have found E.A. gravely disabled had the delay not occurred.

The full opinion is available on…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Melson
Case #: B336211
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/02/2026

Reversible error where prosecution failed to correct knowingly false witness identification testimony. Applying Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264, the reviewing court found that the People failed to comply with the constitutional obligation to correct false testimony after two eyewitnesses changed their testimony at defendant's second trial to falsely claim that they had initially told the police certain key identifying features about the defendant. Considering the matter as a whole, including the lack of preparation by trial counsel to cross-examine the two witnesses, the People did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the false testimony did not contribute…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cagle
Case #: A171799
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 01/07/2026

The claim that an expert’s clinical opinion was insufficient without a formal risk assessment for offender with mental health diagnosis (OMHD) was forfeited on both due process and equal protection grounds. Failure to challenge the expert opinion as inherently unreliable prevented the development of a sufficient record to determine the reliability of a clinical opinion compared to a formal risk assessment tool and to decide whether the Legislature justifiably distinguishes between OMHD and sexually violent predators with regard to the use of such tools. Trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise an issue on which the law…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McInnis
Case #: D082909
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/13/2025

In a 27-year-old cold murder case, the trial court abused its discretion and violated separation of powers principles by dismissing the state’s case. In finding a violation of defendant’s due process rights, the trial court violated separation of powers principles by second-guessing the investigating and charging decisions of the prosecutor. Noting the heart of the dispute was the boundary between negligent and investigative delay, the appellate court found that the People’s decision to delay the prosecution for DNA testing constituted investigative delay and provided strong justification under the balancing test of People v. Nelson (2008) 43…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Skaggs
Case #: A170942
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/14/2025

Minimum due process protections apply to parolees facing revocation and the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the defendant's motion to dismiss the parole revocation petition. The trial court erred when it construed defendant’s motion to dismiss as a PC 1385 motion and concluded that it lacked authority to consider the motion. The appeal, however, was dismissed as moot because Skaggs completed his sentence and parole supervision terminated.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A170942.PDF

Minimum due process protections apply to parolees facing revocation and the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the defendant's motion to dismiss the parole revocation petition. The trial court erred when it construed defendant’s motion to dismiss as a PC 1385 motion and concluded that it lacked authority to consider the motion. The appeal, however, was dismissed as moot because Skaggs completed his sentence and parole supervision terminated.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A170942.PDF

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lewis
Case #: A171414
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/11/2025

PC 1370(a)(2)(B) does not require an evidentiary hearing prior to the trial court ordering involuntary medication for an incompetent defendant. Statute permits a ruling based on written expert reports and this protocol satisfies procedural due process under the Mathews balancing test. No equal protection violation occurs despite other statutory requirements for pre-medication evidentiary hearings (PC 1370(a)(2)(C)-(D) [change of circumstance after initial hearing] & PC 2602-2603 [prison inmates]) because a rational basis exists for treating the other two affected groups differently.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hamilton
Case #: B330995, B333974
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/29/2025

Lifetime registration under PC 290, based on a federal child pornography conviction equivalent to PC 311.11, upheld against constitutional challenges. The legislature could rationally conclude that violating the federal statute was akin to felony -- not misdemeanor -- PC 311.11 violation, justifying Tier 3 lifetime registration. The Attorney General’s decision to designate the federal offense under Tier 3 did not violate procedural due process where the defendant had an opportunity to challenge the designation. Finally, PC 290(d)(4)(A), which requires registration for an out-of-jurisdiction offense “equivalent” to registrable California charge, was not impermissibly vague where the equivalence was established by the…

View Full Summary
Name: Merrick v. Lau
Case #: B322994
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 12/17/2024

A gratuitous reference to plaintiff’s ethnicity and gender during enforcement proceedings in a civil suit did not offend due process. During a hearing in a civil judgment enforcement proceeding, the superior court judge stated “I know your client [the plaintiff] was not happy with my ruling. I mean, she was there, you know, mad dogging me, which didn’t bother me at all. It was almost amusing to see this little Chinese woman stare me down, because she didn’t like the ruling.” Because the record was devoid of any other references to plaintiff’s ethnicity or gender, or any other evidence of…

View Full Summary
Name: Nunez-Dosangos v. Superior Court
Case #: A171177
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/10/2024

Appellant’s pretrial detention, which was in excess of the maximum potential sentence for the charged offense (including conduct credits), was excessive in relation to the government’s public safety goals and constituted impermissible punishment in violation of the federal and state due process principles. The trial court erred in prolonging the defendant’s detention pending trial based on the possibility that a more serious charge (e.g., murder) may be refiled. However, because appellant had since entered a guilty plea and was released on his own recognizance, the Court did not provide further relief and instead dismissed the petition for a…

View Full Summary