Skip to content
Name: People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055
Case #: B322561
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/25/2024

The application of a kidnapping-felony-murder theory to defendants’ Penal Code section 1172.6 petitions did not violate ex post facto principles. In 1990, defendants Hill and Jenkins were involved in a kidnapping and robbery, in which Hill shot at one victim and another victim was killed. Hill and Jenkins were each convicted of first degree murder and attempted premediated murder. In 2019, defendants each filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. After evidentiary hearings, the superior courts found each guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the convictions, and denied relief. Defendants appealed. Held: Affirmed. At the time of the kidnappings…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Coulthard (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 743
Case #: H049755
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/30/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 04/19/2023

To convict defendant of child abduction, the prosecution was not required to prove that the foreign court order or child custody order used to prove defendant’s guilt had previously been registered in California. Defendant’s daughter, M.C., lived with her mother in the United Kingdom, per a UK custody order. Contrary to the visitation terms of the custody order, defendant refused to return M.C. to her mother following M.C.’s visit with him in the U.S. M.C.’s mother obtained a UK emergency return order, which was served on defendant by the Campbell Police Department. Defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted of child…

View Full Summary
Name: Kernan v. Hinojosa
Case #: 15-833
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 05/16/2016
Subsequent History: 136 S.Ct. 1603

Where the last reasoned opinion in state habeas proceedings explicitly imposes a procedural default on a claim, the presumption that a later decision rejecting the claim did not consider the claim on the merits is rebutted when the later decision obviously rested on another ground. Hinojosa was serving a sentence in California for robbery and other offenses when he was "validated" as a gang associate and placed in a secured housing unit (SHU). There, he was subjected to loss of conduct credits based on a 2010 change in the law prohibiting prison gang associates in the SHU from earning future…

View Full Summary
Name: Gilman v. Brown
Case #: 14-15613
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 02/22/2016

Propositions 9 and 89, which deal with parole for convicted murderers, do not violate the ex post facto clause because they do not pose a significant risk of lengthening sentences. California inmates convicted of murder sued California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arguing that Propositions 9 and 89 violated the ex post facto clause because they create a significant risk that their periods of incarceration will be longer than they would have been before the passage of the propositions. Proposition 89 gave the governor authority to reverse decisions of the Parole Board with respect to inmates convicted of murder. Proposition…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Valenti
Case #: B255727
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/14/2016

The ex post facto clauses prohibit imposition of One Strike sentences (Pen. Code, § 667.61) for continuous sexual abuse of children (Pen. Code, § 288.5) that occurred entirely before 2006. A jury convicted defendant of a number of offenses arising from his sexual abuse of 15 children over nearly 30 years, including five counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child with a multiple-victim allegation for each count. For each count of continuous sexual abuse, the court imposed a consecutive term of 15 years to life under the One Strike law. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that four of the…

View Full Summary
Name: Hinojosa v. Davey
Case #: 13-56012
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 06/02/2015

Application of no-conduct credit provisions of amended Penal Code section 2933.6 to a prisoner whose commitment offense predates the amendment violates the ex post facto clause. In 2003, appellant pled guilty to robbery, gun use, and participation in a street gang, and was sentenced to prison. In 2009 he was validated as a "prison-gang associate" and sent to the Security Housing Unit (SHU) at Corcoran. At that time, section 2933.6 allowed prison-gang inmates in the SHU to earn restricted conduct credits. On January 25, 2010, section 2933.6 was amended to eliminate such credits. The amended provision was applied to appellant,…

View Full Summary
Name: Litmon v. Harris
Case #: 12-15261
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/14/2014

Requiring sexually violent predators to register in person every 90 days does not violate constitutional protections. In 2008, Litmon was released from treatment after having been adjudicated a sexually violent predator (SVP). Pursuant to Penal Code section 290.012, subdivision (b), it was ordered that he report to his local police station every 90 days to register. Litmon sought injunctive relief from the registration requirement, contending that his equal protection rights were violated because mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) and mentally disordered sex offenders (MDSOs) only have to register annually. The district court dismissed the complaint. Litman appealed. Held: Affirmed. MDOs and…

View Full Summary
Name: Braziel v. Superior Court
Case #: B249830
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 04/09/2014
Subsequent History: Review granted 7/30/2014: S218503

Under Proposition 36, in considering whether the defendant's current offense is serious or violent, the court should consider the nature of the offense under current law. In 1999, Braziel was convicted of assault by force likely to inflict great bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, and making a criminal threat; he had two strike priors. He was sentenced to 25 years to life. In May 2013, Braziel petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 36, the strike reform law. He was found ineligible and appealed. The Court of Appeal treated his appeal as a petition for writ of mandate and denied…

View Full Summary
Name: In re K.J.
Case #: A137787
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/20/2014

Minor may be placed in the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) based on amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code that occurred after he became a ward. In August 2008, the 12-year-old minor admitted molesting his younger brother (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). He was declared a ward and placed on probation in the custody of his grandparents. When they could not control him he was sent to three different residential treatment programs, but failed in each one. At a contested disposition hearing, the court committed the minor to DJF in a long-term sex offender program. The minor objected, claiming…

View Full Summary
Name: Biggs v. Sect. of the Cal. Dept. Corrections
Case #: 11-18021
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 05/29/2013

Retroactive application of amendment to California Constitution, which gives the Governor authority to review parole board decisions, does not violate ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. After Biggs was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, the California Constitution was amended to give the Governor authority to review parole board decisions for inmates convicted of murder (Cal. Const. Art. V, § 8, subd. (b)). After Biggs was found suitable for parole, the Governor reversed the board's decision. Biggs appealed, claiming that retroactive application of the change in procedure violated the ex post facto…

View Full Summary