Skip to content
Name: In re Carlos E.
Case #: F045287
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/01/2005

Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, amended by Senate Bill No. 459 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.), operative January 1, 2004, requires the juvenile court to exercise its discretion to determine the maximum term of a minor's confinement at CYA based on the facts and circumstances of the minor's case and not simply to calculate the maximum term that could be imposed on an adult. The opinion reviews developments in juvenile law in tandem with the Determinate Sentencing Law since 1976, concluding that Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, which sets the maximum confinement time to that which could be imposed…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garrido
Case #: D043758
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/04/2005

Following the denial of a motion to suppress evidence prior to the preliminary hearing, appellant pleaded guilty to a controlled substance offense, without renewing the motion in superior court. Appellant raised the denial of the motion to suppress on appeal. In this opinion, the appellate court held that a person may not seek appellate review of the denial of a suppression motion after pleading guilty following the denial of a motion to suppress evidence by a magistrate prior to the preliminary hearing, unless the motion has been renewed in the superior court where the court is not acting…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Foreman
Case #: A105691
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/31/2005

A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11368, forging a prescription to obtain drugs, is not included in the description of nonviolent drug offenses under Penal Code section 1210, subdivision (a). Thus, treatment under the alternative sentencing provisions of Proposition 36 is not available for that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thurman
Case #: C044448
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/26/2005
Subsequent History: Revw den. 5/11/05

Appellant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine, and was granted probation pursuant to Proposition 36, on the condition that he complete a drug treatment program and that he waive his right to any future custody credits for time spent in a residential treatment program. Appellant objected to the waiver of credits, but agreed to the terms of probation. On appeal, appellant contended that since the grant of probation was mandatory under Proposition 36, the trial court could not condition probation on the prospective waiver of custody credits. The appellate court rejected the argument. Penal Code…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lopez
Case #: S119294
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 01/06/2005

Because of a split of authority, the California Supreme Court granted review in this case to review the following issue: Is a defendant who is convicted of first degree murder with a finding that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22 subject to an enhancement of 10 years under section 186.22(b)(1)(C) or, alternatively, a minimum parole eligibility term of 15 years under section 186.22(b)(5)? The Court in this opinion held that first degree murder is a violent felony which is punishable by imprisonment for life…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Leal
Case #: S114399
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/05/2004

Appellant was convicted of two violations of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1). The jury was instructed according to CALJIC 10.42 that the term "duress" as defined by the statute means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship or retribution. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court erred by defining duress to include a direct or implied threat of hardship. The Court of Appeal affirmed, declining to follow the contrary holding in People v. Valentine. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict, and in this opinion affirmed. The 1993…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wallace
Case #: B170872
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 07/20/2004

Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1)'s $20 court security fee may be imposed on defendants whose crimes were committed prior to its August 17, 2003, effective date. The imposition of the fee does not violate ex post facto provisions of the federal and state Constitutions. The $20 fee was part of a budget trailer bill, and was not enacted as punishment. A minimal fee, imposed for a nonpunitive purpose and without punitive effect, is not subject to the limitations of the ex post facto…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Johnson)
Case #: A106264
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/21/2004
Subsequent History: 9/29/04 rev. den.

There is nothing unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious in applying the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act to a group of individuals who were part of a conspiracy to deface property with graffiti. There is no requirement that there must be a violent crime to invoke the provisions of the STEP Act. The requirements of the STEP Act are sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what constitutes a gang for purposes of the Act. The Legislature intended the STEP Act to apply to a group whose only alleged criminality is engaging in felony…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Molina
Case #: B169153
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 07/07/2004
Subsequent History: 9/29/04: Revw. denied

Appellant was found in possession of another person's cancelled credit card. He was convicted of possession of access card account information with respect to an access card validly issued to another person with the intent to use it fraudulently in violation of Penal Code section 484e, subdivision (d). On appeal, he contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because a cancelled credit card is not a means of account access which can be used to obtain money, goods, or services. He also argued that a cancelled credit card is not an access card which…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ferrando
Case #: C042104
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/13/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 4/28/04

Appellant was convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11366, opening or maintaining a place for the use or sale of methamphetamine. The court denied his request to be sentenced under Proposition 36. The appellate court here affirmed that denial. Section 11366 is not a simple possession offense, but more like the commercial offenses expressly excluded from the provisions of Proposition…

View Full Summary