Skip to content
Name: Jones v. Superior Court
Case #: D042335
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/22/2004
Subsequent History: None

The question resolved in this case is whether the reciprocal discovery provisions of the Criminal Discovery statute (Pen. Code, sec. 1054 et seq) apply to a provation revocation hearing, such that a probationer is obligated to provide discovery to the prosecution in such a proceeding. The appellate court here held that there is no such obligation. A probation revocation proceeding is not a criminal trial within the meaning of section 1054.3, and no other statutory authority provides for such…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rivera
Case #: G031469
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/29/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was convicted of felony offenses for exhibiting a loaded firearm in violation of Penal Code section 417, subdivision (b). On appeal, he argued that the statutory provision he was found guilty of violating requires that the crime be committed on the grounds of a day care center, and since there was no evidence of this, those convictions had to be reversed. The appellate court here agreed that the convictions were invalid, but held that there was sufficient evidence to support misdemeanor convictions under Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(2)(B). The statute is ambiguous, but the legislative…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Futrell
Case #: D039474
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/09/2003
Subsequent History: Depublished 3/24/04

A jury convicted appellant of pimping, in violation of Penal Code section 266h. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the lesser included misdemeanor offense of aiding a prostitute, in violation of section 653.23. (He argued that the jury might have believed his conduct was less than felonious because the prostitute testified that she had only known him a week and that she had just given him her money to hold in case she got arrested.) The appellate court here rejected the argument and affirmed. Section…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gonzales
Case #: H025035
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/17/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 3/17/04

Sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s convictions for robbery and impersonating a public officer. Defendant was convicted of these offenses in connection with two incidents in which he and another man approached people whose cars had broken down, demanding to see identification, and stealing the victim’s wallet when he pulled it out to produce identification. Defendant argued on appeal that insufficient evidence supported the verdict that he had impersonated a state public officer, relying on confusion surrounding the language of Penal Code section 146a, subdivision (b), which applies to any person who falsely represents himself or herself to be…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Luna
Case #: B164536
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 11/17/2003
Subsequent History: None

The March 7, 2000, adoption of Proposition 21 modified the decision in People v. Rodriquez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, which previously held that an abstract of judgment showing simply a conviction for violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) was not sufficient evidence that the defendant had previously been convicted of a serious felony. Since Proposition 21, personal use of a deadly weapon, is no longer required, and thus an abstract stating "ASSLT GBI W/DL WPN" was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Deguzman
Case #: H025310
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/20/2003
Subsequent History: None

An ambiguity in both Penal Code section 12303.2 (possession of any explosive in a public location) and section 12303.3 (possession of any explosive with intent to injure) did not require dismissal of all but one count of each crime (where defendant was convicted of 54 counts of each crime). "Any" as used in each statute defines the unit of possession in singular terms, so defendant could be convicted of as many counts as there were…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cantu
Case #: H024717
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/10/2003
Subsequent History: Rehrg. den. 11/6/03

Proposition 36 only applies to offenses involving controlled substances, not offenses involving…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Guzman
Case #: H024003
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/08/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/12/03: S119129

Appellant committed a nonviolent drug possession offense (NVDPO) while on probation for a nonviolent nonserious felony offense and a misdemeanor offense. His motion for drug treatment under Proposition 36 was denied, and he appealed. The appellate court found that Proposition 36 does not apply to such individuals, but because their exclusion violates equal protection because of Proposition 36's applicability to similarly situated parolees, reversal was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cockburn
Case #: C038058
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/17/2003
Subsequent History: Rehrg. den. 7/14/03

Appellant was convicted of multiple offenses arising from the kidnap and assault of a minor. One of the convictions was for a violation of Penal Code section 273a, felony child abuse. On appeal, appellant argued that prosecution under the general child abuse statute was preempted by the specific willful injury to a child statute (section 273d). The appellate court here affirmed. The prosecutor could properly elect to prosecute under section 273a rather than 273d. The general statute does not provide for a more severe penalty than the special statute. Further, section 273d requires the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hillhouse
Case #: G030277
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 06/27/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was charged with numerous sexual offenses against a person incapable of giving legal consent because of a mental disorder or developmental disability, in violation of Penal Code sections 288a, subdivision (g) and 289, subdivision (b). The victim was a 14-year-old minor who was developmentally disabled. The trial court dismissed the information on the ground that sections 288a, subdivision (g), and 289, subdivision (b) were inapplicable to acts committed against a minor, because minors are incapable of giving legal consent to sexual acts, without regard to any mental impairment. The prosecutor appealed the dismissal of the information,…

View Full Summary