Skip to content
Name: People v. Davis
Case #: A131764
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 03/28/2013

The Second Amendment does not protect the right of a defendant to possess a "billy." Appellant was convicted of illegal possession of a billy (former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)) based on his possession of a modified baseball bat, which he carried in his car. On appeal, defendant raised a number of statutory and constitutional challenges to his conviction. Held: Affirmed. Davis claimed that if former section 12020, subdivision (a)(1) is held to bar his possession of a baseball bat as a prohibited billy, it violates the Second Amendment, citing District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McDonald
Case #: G044963
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/28/2013

Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) does not violate equal protection by providing for indeterminate commitment and by placing burden on defendant to obtain release. Defendant had been the subject of numerous two-year SVP petitions since 1999. Based on a petition filed in January 2008, he was committed for an indeterminate term. On appeal he challenged his commitment on equal protection and due process grounds. Held: Affirmed. In People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (McKee II) the court found that notwithstanding the similarities between SVP's, MDO's, and NGI's, SVP's as a class represent a greater danger to society and therefore,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Pellecer
Case #: B238949
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/17/2013

Carrying knives in a backpack does not result in a violation of former Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(4) (carrying a concealed dirk or dagger), because the statute requires that the item be concealed upon his or her person. Police officers went to a park in Los Angeles in response to a call of a possible burglary suspect and found appellant crouching in an enclosed patio in the park. He was leaning on a closed backpack. The officers searched the backpack and found three identical throwing knives. At a jury trial, appellant was convicted of carrying a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Diaz
Case #: E054229
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/06/2013

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in data recorded in her vehicle's sensing diagnostic module (SDM) and admission of the information which was obtained in a warrantless search does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Diaz appealed her involuntary manslaughter and gross vehicular manslaughter convictions following her involvement in a fatal accident while driving under the influence. She challenged the denial of her motion to suppress data downloaded from her vehicle's SDM during a warrantless search. Held: Affirmed. The expectation of privacy in a vehicle is a diminished one. Here, the scope of the search did not exceed probable cause.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Smith
Case #: A132152
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/23/2013

Sexually violent predator (SVP) was entitled to new hearing where court proceeded under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6608 instead of section 6605. Smith was found to be an SVP and committed indeterminately. In July 2009, an examining psychologist recommended conditional release. Smith filed a petition for conditional release under sections 6605 and 6608. With both counsels' agreement, the court determined that the appropriate code section was 6608, and proceeded with a hearing conducted pursuant to that section. Smith submitted the report recommending conditional release. The court denied the petition, finding that Smith failed to carry his burden of proof…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Conley
Case #: C070272
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/10/2012
Subsequent History: Rehearing granted, Depublished, Vacated

Defendant whose appeal was pending when Proposition 36 (Three Strikes Amendment) was enacted is not entitled to new sentencing hearing and must instead file a petition for recall in the trial court. Defendant was convicted of various offenses related to a drunk driving incident. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes Law. While defendant's appeal was pending, Proposition 36, which imposed new limits on three strike sentences, was enacted. If the defendant had been sentenced after the new law went into effect, he would not have been subject to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Milstein
Case #: B233589
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 12/12/2012

The three-year statute of limitations in Penal Code section 801 applies to conspiracy to defraud by false pretenses or false promises (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(4)). Appellant, a former attorney, was charged with a number of offenses, including a violation of section 182, subdivision (a)(4), in connection with an allegedly fraudulent legal service entitled "early release" that he offered to prison and jail inmates. The trial court denied appellant's motion to dismiss the conspiracy count as time-barred under the statute of limitations. Appellant subsequently pleaded no contest to the this count. Reversed. On appeal, the parties…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Zeigler
Case #: H036573
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/30/2012

In considering an application for a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to Penal Code section 4852.01 et seq., the underlying conduct of an offense dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1 is to be considered. Appellant petitioned for a certificate of rehabilitation for two prior drug convictions, one in 1989 and one in 2000. Over the prosecution's objection, the trial court ruled that it had no discretion to consider evidence of the conduct underlying appellant's 2007 drug offense for which he was granted and successfully completed Proposition 36 probation, and granted the certificate. Reversed. Section 4852.01 et seq.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Barba
Case #: D060457
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/20/2012

Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a) (unlawful use of personal identifying information) does not require some form of personation. Defendants were charged with violating section 530.5, subdivision (a) and other factually related offenses. At the preliminary hearing, evidence was introduced that business checks containing personal identifying information were taken from the victim's vehicle. Defendants later attempted to cash some of the checks that they completed. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the section 530.5 charge, reasoning that the statute was intended to cover the situation where one represents himself to be another when cashing a check (i.e.,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rajanayagam
Case #: G046044
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 11/15/2012

Denial of enhanced conduct credits under Penal Code section 4019, effective October 1, 2011, to a defendant who committed his offense prior to October 1, 2011 does not violate equal protection. Appellant was convicted of offenses that occurred on August 20, 2011. He was sentenced on October 31, 2011. The trial court applied section 4019 as it existed on the date of the offense when it awarded appellant presentence conduct credit. On appeal, he contended he was entitled to additional conduct credit under the October 1, 2011 version of section 4019 for his time served in local custody from…

View Full Summary