Skip to content
Name: People v. Sandoval
Case #: D071560
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/30/2017

Criminal protective order preventing defendant convicted of domestic violence offense from initiating any contact with the victim for three years was appropriate under Penal Code section 1203.097 and reasonable. Sandoval was convicted of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(1)) and was placed on probation. He had choked his wife to the point of unconsciousness and this was his second domestic violence offense in a two-year period. At sentencing, over the objections of Sandoval and his wife, the court reissued a criminal protective order (CPO) preventing Sandoval from initiating…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Starski
Case #: A145450
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/05/2017

Trial court's jury instructions on the unlicensed practice of law were not overbroad and did not infringe on defendant's right to freedom of speech. Holding himself out to be an attorney, Starski wrote a letter to the owner of a lumber business, claiming his "client" (codefendant Cornett) had been injured at the store and sought a financial settlement. This led to a prosecution for the unlawful practice of law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6126), which was also the basis for felony charges of attempted grand theft, conspiracy to commit the unlawful practice of law, and conspiracy to commit grand…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Soltero
Case #: 06-50257
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/19/2007
Subsequent History: amended 12/12/07, 510 F.3d 858

Conditions of supervised release that are so broad that they unnecessarily restrict otherwise lawful activities are constitutionally impermissible. Appellant pled guilty to the federal offense of felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 72 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. As one of the conditions of release, he was prohibited from associating with any known member of any "disruptive group." The court noted that because this condition could reasonably be interpreted to include a striking labor union, political protesters, or celebrating sports fans, it was a substantial encroachment upon appellant's First Amendment…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jorge G.
Case #: F043272
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/13/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 6/23/04

The minor was ordered to register as a gang member, pursuant to Penal Code section 186.30, subdivision (b)(3), [added by the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act, enacted by Proposition 21], as a condition of probation, after he admitted a juvenile petition charging him with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest. At a contested disposition hearing, he challenged the gang registration requirement. After testimony, the juvenile court found that the charges were gang-related, and therefore registration was required. On appeal, the minor contended that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court disagreed but applied…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Hill
Case #: 00-30023
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/29/2002
Subsequent History: None

Hill was convicted of harboring and being an accessory after the fact, for assisting her husband, who was avoiding the payment of more than $100,000 in past due child support. Hill, the second wife, purchased property in Mexico which her husband fled to, and transferred money to him. She also refused to divulge his whereabouts. On appeal, she argued that the harboring and accessory statutes are unconstitutional as they applied to her because they criminalize conduct she was entitled to engage in under the First and Fifth Amendments. The appellate court here found no merit in…

View Full Summary