Skip to content
Name: Fortner v. Superior Court (Monterey County)
Case #: H038353
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/17/2013

Trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction over domestic violence offense committed in Hawaii against a victim who was subsequently battered in California. In early 2010, Fortner and Doe, who lived together, argued about Fortner's past use of prostitutes. In April 2010, they went to Hawaii, where they again argued about the prostitutes. Fortner hit Doe in the face, causing an eye injury. After they returned to California, Doe sought medical help for the injury. In November 2011, Fortner again battered Doe. He was charged with numerous crimes arising from this incident and two counts based on the April 2010 Hawaii…

View Full Summary
Name: Jointer v. Superior Court of Orange County
Case #: G047824
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 06/28/2013

Trial court abused its discretion in denying a Penal Code section 1405 motion for postconviction DNA testing because, assuming the test came back favorable for the defendant, there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable verdict. Appellant was convicted of second degree robbery with a firearm enhancement after evidence linked him to the robbery of a grocery store supervisor. As a result of prior strike convictions, he was sentenced to 34 years to life in state prison. A critical item of evidence offered by the prosecution was a water bottle bearing appellant's fingerprints that the perpetrator drank from. A…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Valverde
Case #: G045332
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/06/2012

Where defendant suffered one conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) she is not entitled to issuance of a restricted license under a statute which only applies to those convicted of DUI on more than one occasion. Defendant pled guilty to driving under the influence and the DMV suspended her license for six months, concurrent to a one-year administrative suspension. She then asked the DMV to issue her a restricted license under Vehicle Code section 13352, subdivision (a)(3) after she met the requirements listed in the statute. The DMV denied the request because that subdivision applies to drivers who…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mena
Case #: S173973
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 05/31/2012

A trial court's denial of a lineup motion is reviewable by either a pretrial writ or direct appeal. Appellant and his codefendants were charged with two assaults stemming from an unprovoked attack on the 15-year-old and 17-year-old victims. One victim identified appellant at a curbside showup and the other identified him at a photographic lineup. Prior to trial, appellant sought but was denied a pretrial lineup. He did not seek writ review. The appellate court ruled that appellant had forfeited his right to appeal the denial by failing to seek a writ. Reversed. …

View Full Summary
Name: Bracher v. Superior Court (El Dorado County)
Case #: C069958
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/16/2012

In a misdemeanor case, a defendant may appear for court proceedings through counsel and a local rule of court with a blanket policy requiring appearance of a defendant in a misdemeanor case is invalid. Penal Code section 977, subdivision (a) provides that a misdemeanor defendant may ordinarily appear through counsel. In an appropriate case, the court can order a defendant be present for arraignment, at the time of plea and sentencing, but must first make an individual assessment of the case. El Dorado County rule of court 5.11.02 required all defendants to be personally present for the calendared Readiness…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Picklesimer
Case #: S165680
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/15/2010

A noncustodial sex offender who is no longer subject to mandatory sex offender registration should seek Hofsheier relief via a petition for writ of mandate. In 1993 defendant pled guilty to committing intercourse with minor (Pen. Code, sec. 261.5), oral copulation with minor (sec. 288a, subd. (b)(1)), and sexual penetration of minor (sec. 289, subd. (h)) and was sentenced to prison. In October of 2006, after the California Supreme Court, in People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, invalidated mandatory sex-offender registration for defendants convicted of a section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) offense, appellant filed a motion in the trial court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Antillia
Case #: G041453
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/11/2009

The constructive filing doctrine of In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72 applies to a petition for writ of mandate/prohibition under Penal Code section 1405 subdivision (j), which authorizes DNA testing. Penal Code section 1405 allows an incarcerated felon to make a motion for DNA testing. Under subdivision (j), review of a ruling on such a motion is by writ of mandate/prohibition with a specified 20-day filing requirement commencing from the date of the ruling. In this case, the appellate court extended the constructive filing doctrine of Benoit to section 1405, subdivision (j), finding that the rationale underlying Benoit (to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hopkins
Case #: E045671
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/20/2009

A trial court order denying return of property is not appealable under Penal Code section 1237 because such an order is not listed among the matters for which an appeal is authorized under the statute. Appellant was charged with transportation and possession of more than an ounce of marijuana but the charges were subsequently dismissed. Appellant's subsequent non-statutory motion for return of property was denied and appellant filed an appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1237. The appellate court ruled that the proper avenue for redress was via a petition for writ of mandate or a civil action…

View Full Summary
Name: Sabatasso v. Superior Court of Orange County
Case #: G039906
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/20/2008

Under Penal Code section 2713.1, a paroled prisoner who is transferred to another law enforcement agency for proceedings under Penal Code section 6600 (SVP) is entitled to the $200 release money authorized by section 2713.1. Upon his parole, Sabatasso was released to the Orange County Sheriff's Office pending evaluation as a sexually violent predator and commitment under the SVPA. His request for the $200 release fund, authorized pursuant to Penal Code section 2713.1, was denied on the grounds that he remained in custody as opposed to being paroled to the community, and, therefore, was not entitled to the money…

View Full Summary
Name: Kruse v. Superior Court
Case #: C055654
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/15/2008

Under Penal Code section 861, an accused is entitled to a continuous preliminary hearing, unless he agrees to continue the preliminary hearing once it has started, or the magistrate makes a finding of good cause for continuance, as shown by affidavit. The remedy for the violation of this one-session rule is dismissal of the complaint. The record reflected that at the end of the first day of the preliminary hearing, defendant agreed to a continuance to a date certain. On that date, the prison authorities failed to deliver defendant and the matter was eventually continued for…

View Full Summary