Skip to content
Name: In re Schmidt
Case #: H029842
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/28/2006

Appellant, aged 34, sought release from CYA. In 1989, a 602 petition was sustained which alleged that the then 16-year old committed sodomy and first degree murder of a three-year-old girl. He was committed to CYA. At the age of 25, his commitment was extended pursuant to section 1800, and subsequently extended under that section for three additional two-year periods. In June, 2005, YOPB ordered his release on parole. The Board later rescinded the parole date because it did not have the authority to parole a person who has been committed under section 1800. …

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lamas
Case #: G035001
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/20/2006
Subsequent History: 11/1/06 Rev. GRANTED: S145231

Appellant was convicted of street terrorism in violation of Penal Code section 186.22. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the elements of street terrorism, because the crime requires that the defendant commit "a separate felony" in addition to an underlying gang-related felony. The appellate court rejected the argument as a misinterpretation of People v. Castaneda (2000) 23 Cal.4th 743, and contrary to the Legislature's intent. Requiring a separate felony would defeat the Legislature's purpose of making gang participation itself a substantive…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lemanuel C.
Case #: A109322
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/12/2006
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 8/23/06: S144515

Appellant's commitment to CYA was extended under Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800. On appeal, appellant contended that the statute was unconstitutional in that it denied him due process of law. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. Section 1800 does not violate due process under the cases defining the findings necessary for constitutionally valid civil commitments. In In re Howard N., the court concluded that in a section 1800 proceeding, there must be a finding of serious difficulty in controlling dangerous behavior. This case was tried before Howard N., and the section 1800 petition failed to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. White
Case #: B166502
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/14/2005

Appellant sexually assaulted a woman by holding a gun to her head and threatening to shoot her if she did not comply with his demands. He was convicted of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation through threats of future injury (Penal Code section 288 subdivision (c)(3)), and robbery. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of oral copulation through threat of future injury; that the threat made was for immediate injury. The appellate court affirmed, holding that only a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator would execute the threat must exist. Here, appellant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Vincelli
Case #: C046512
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/07/2005

The phrase "changes his or her name" in the sex offender registration statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The defendant was convicted of forcible rape in 1975, and subsequently registered as a sex offender under his legal name, Gary Lee Vincelli. In 1995, he obtained a driver's license and birth certificate under the name Jerry Lee Binelli. He continued to register under his original name, and also maintained a driver's license and credit card under that name, but conducted business and owned property under the name Jerry Binelli. He was charged with failing to register after a…

View Full Summary
Name: Anthony J. v. Superior Court
Case #: B183285
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/31/2005

Father appealed a court order denying him reunification services to his biological son based on his abuse of the son's half-siblings. Father contended that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) did not apply to him because he was not the father of the half-siblings. The court rejected his argument and affirmed. The term "parent" in section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) refers to father's status with respect to his son, not to his status with the siblings who were…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Reeves
Case #: S110887
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 05/09/2005
Subsequent History: rehng. den. 7/27/05

Where a defendant is sentenced to concurrent terms, only one of which is for a violent felony, section 2933.1 limits his ability to earn conduct credits only for the duration of the term for the violent felony. The defendant here was sentenced to a five-year term for a violent offense, and a concurrent ten-year term for a nonviolent offense. The court held that while the conduct credits for each offense were limited to fifteen percent until the end of the term for the violent offense, once that term had been served the credit limitation ended. This construction…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wheeler
Case #: C045860
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/22/2005

Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, to forging a prescription in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11368. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred when it denied him treatment pursuant to Proposition 36. The appellate court here rejected his argument and affirmed. Section 11368 does not meet the statutory definition of a "nonviolent drug possession offense" as required for treatment under Proposition 36. Section 11368 does not facially meet the definition because there is no requirement that the forgery be for the purpose of personal use. It is…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Guzman
Case #: S119129
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/21/2005

Review was granted in this case to determine whether Proposition 36 violates equal protection principles by failing to make its mandatory probation requirement applicable to those who commit nonviolent drug possession offenses (NDPO's) while on probation for offenses which are not NDPO's. The Court of Appeal found that the language of Proposition 36 excluded those defendants, and that the omission denied equal protection because the requirement does apply to parolees who commit NDPO's while on parole after completing prison terms for non-NDPO's. To remedy this, the Court of Appeal construed the requirement also to apply to offenders who…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Terry
Case #: H026576
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/17/2005
Subsequent History: Rhrg. den. 4/7/05

Appellant was found guilty of multiple counts of committing lewd acts on a 14 year old girl and one count of continuous sexual abuse. The information was amended during trial, changing the time period alleged to the year of 1995, and including no information that the counts were time-barred. On appeal, Terry argued that the counts were time barred because the statutory period had expired before the information was filed. The appellate court here reversed and remanded for a determination on whether the counts in question were time barred. The additional counts were added more than…

View Full Summary