Skip to content
Name: Solano Co. v. Superior Court
Case #: G040592
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/07/2009

In order to challenge a magistrate’s finding of lack of reasonable cause on a complaint filed in adult court, a prosecutor may seek review of the findings by filing an information before the case is transferred to the juvenile court. The minor was charged by complaint directly in adult court because it was alleged he committed crimes that qualified for direct filing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (d)(2) .) But after the preliminary hearing, the minor was not held to answer for any crime for which direct filing was permitted. To challenge the magistrate's probable…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Dominguez
Case #: H031795
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/10/2008

It is a due process violation to prosecute a defendant for an offense not shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearing or arising out of the transaction upon which the commitment was based. Following evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing, appellant was held to answer to one count of vehicle theft alleged to have occurred between October 16-19, 2006. At trial, the victim testified that on October 9, 2006, he had left his car with appellant to be repaired, and that appellant took it without the his permission to visit appellant's family and did not return it until later…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Renteria
Case #: D050536
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/08/2008

California has territorial jurisdiction over an offense if the defendant, with the requisite intent, does a preparatory act in California that is more than a de minimus act, but not necessarily an attempt, toward the completion of the offense. A California Highway Patrol Officer in a marked vehicle followed appellant who was driving a stolen vehicle on a state highway. After some distance, appellant exited the freeway and proceeded to the entrance of Camp Pendleton, a United States Marine Corps Base, where he stopped at the main gate which was guarded by two marines. The officer used his loud speaker…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Alanis
Case #: H031059
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/16/2008

The filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in the appellate court until the appeal is determined and the remittitur has issued, so as to deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant agreed to plead guilty to the charged offenses on condition he would be allowed to challenge the pre-plea denial of discovery motions. Following imposition of the agreed-upon sentence he filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, the parties discovered that the discovery issue could not be reached because of the guilty plea and decided to remedy the error by having the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Williams
Case #: D048907
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/17/2007

An unauthorized sentence can be corrected by the trial court even though an appeal is pending. As a general rule, the filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the remittitur, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to make an order affecting the judgment. (People v. Lockridge (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1752.) An exception to this rule is that the trial court can correct an unauthorized sentence at any time and also, by a subsequent action, avoid creating an unauthorized sentence. (People…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Quiroz
Case #: D047683
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/10/2007

When a defendant's participation in a conspiracy begins while defendant is a minor but continues until after defendant's 18th birthday, defendant may be tried as an adult and the trial court is not required to transfer the case to juvenile court. Appellant agreed to sell her bank account and personal information to codefendants. The date she did so was in dispute with appellant claiming it was days before she turned 18 years old. After she turned the information over and after she turned 18, forged checks were deposited in her account and large sums of money withdrawn.…

View Full Summary
Name: Goldstein v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Case #: B199147
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/23/2007

The general rule as to grand jury materials is that there is no presumptive right of public access under California law. However, when it becomes necessary in a court of justice to disclose grand jury proceedings, the absence of statutory authority to do so doesn’t prevent the superior court that supervised the grand jury from limited disclosure to prevent injustice.

The party seeking transcripts must show that the material sought is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding; that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy; and that the request is…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Dutra
Case #: C051198
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/20/2006

Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. The terms of the remittitur define the trial court's jurisdiction, not the law of the case. Further, the reviewing court cannot review or modify its own judgments once the cause has passed from its control by the issuance of the remittitur. In this case, in a prior opinion, the court gave the People the option of either agreeing to imposition of the midterm sentence or accepting a remand to allow a sentencing trial in accord with the holding in Blakely v. Washington (2004)…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Casch
Case #: 05-30270
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 05/24/2006

While venue is not an element of a charged crime, it is part of the prosecution’s burden and a question of fact for the jury. Appellant argued the court committed instructional error when it failed to instruct on venue in a conspiracy, where the offenses took place in Washington and Idaho. The Ninth Circuit held "it is not for the court to determine whether venue exists, and it is error for the court to decline to give [an] instruction." However, the error is not a structural error, and its subject to harmless error analysis. In this…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Roberts
Case #: S112505
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/21/2005

The Supreme Court granted review in this case to decide whether a habeas corpus petition challenging a Board of Prison Term (BPT) finding of parole unsuitability or denial of a parole date should be filed in and adjudicated by a court within the county where the petitioner was convicted and sentenced or the county in which he is incarcerated. The court concluded that the petition should be filed in the county in which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. This type of decision is more like a sentencing determination made by a court in the county where judgment…

View Full Summary