Skip to content
Name: People v. Brock
Case #: B179876
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/26/2007

The admission of appellant's statements made during plea negotiations was harmless error. Appellant was sentenced to six years in state prison for escape from a parole halfway house, which was the upper term doubled under the Three Strikes law. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred when it admitted a confession he made during plea negotiations. The appellate court agreed, but found the error harmless. Appellant admitted that he left the program; the only dispute was which day he actually left. Therefore, given his testimony, erroneous admission of his additional statements during plea…

View Full Summary
Name: Barragan v. Superior Court
Case #: C054719
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/28/2007

Penal Code sections 950, 951, 952, governing accusatory pleadings in a criminal case, permit amendment of the information to allege aggravating factors for purposes of sentencing per Cunningham. As the prosecution prepared to present its first witness, Cunningham v. California (2007) __U.S.__ [166 L.Ed.2d 856] was decided. In response, the prosecutor amended the information to allege aggravating factors for sentencing purposes. Appellant's demurrer was overruled and he filed a writ of prohibition. Construing the statutes governing accusatory pleadings, the appellate court found that they do not preclude allegations other than public offenses. Further, the court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Riskin
Case #: F047102
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/22/2006

Appellant was charged with forcible lewd acts on his daughter pursuant to an extension of the statute of limitations under former Penal Code section 803(g). On appeal, he argued that instructing the jury on preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence as the burdens of proof of extension of the statute of limitations and independent corroboration of the children's accusations, respectively, denied him of his constitutional right to due process. The appellate court rejected the argument. The Constitution only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt where a fact increases the penalty. An extension of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Guevara
Case #: B163177
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/29/2004
Subsequent History: 10/20/04 rev. den.

The statute of limitations for the offense of filing a false nomination paper, in violation of Elections Code section 18203, is four years after discovery. Even though Penal Code section 801 provides that prosecution for offenses punishable by state prison must be commenced within three years from the commission of the offense, section 803, subdivision (c), states that crimes having as a material element fraud of breach of fiduciary duty are subject to a discovery rule. The list of eleven examples provided for in that section is not exhaustive, and includes any crime with a material element of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Salas
Case #: B159750
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/21/2004
Subsequent History: mod. 120 Cal.App.4th 590e; Rev. granted 9/29/04: S126773

Appellants were convicted of selling unqualified securities, in violation of Corporations Code section 25110, and 25540, subd.(a). The jury also found the special allegation that each of the offenses was not discovered until after July 10, 1996 (Penal Code section 803(c)) to be true. On appeal, appellants contended that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the statute of limitations on the offenses was four years instead of three; even if the four-year statute of limitations was applicable, it expired prior to the start of the prosecution, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Vasquez
Case #: B170326
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/11/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 7/21/04

Appellants were charged with multiple sex offenses, all of which had six year statutes of limitation. The crimes alleged took place in 1992, 1993 and 1994. The prosecutor filed the information pursuant to Penal Code section 803, subdivision (g), following the victim's report of the offenses in 2002. The trial court dismissed the information, finding that it was time-barred and that section 803, subdivision (g) was a revival statute condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stogner v. California, and the prosecutor appealed. The appellate court here reversed. Section 803, subdivision (g), is not a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Konow
Case #: S111494
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/22/2004

A superior court reviewing a motion to set aside the information under Penal Code section 995 is authorized to review a prior order of the superior court compelling the magistrate to reinstate the complaint under Penal Code section 871.5, and that review of the prior order does not violate the California Constitution. Further, the superior court may set aside an information under section 995 where the magistrate has erroneously and prejudicially failed to consider whether to dismiss a complaint in furtherance of justice under section…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Butte
Case #: C041978
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/14/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 6/30/04

Appellant's convictions for 35 sex offenses perpetrated between 1979 and 1998 were reversed as being barred by the statute of limitations, in light of Stogner v. California (2003) 539 __ U.S. __. In the published portion of the opinion, the appellate court addressed appellant's contention that the information provided him with inadequate due process notice of the charges because the offenses were charged as having occurred over a period of years. The appellate court here found that since appellant waived his right to a preliminary hearing, he forfeited his right to complain on appeal that he was provided…

View Full Summary
Name: Foley v. Superior Court
Case #: D043155
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/30/2004

Petitioner was charged with being a spectator at an illegal motor vehicle speed contest in violation of a San Diego city ordinance. He demurred to the complaint, arguing that the city's authority to criminalize speed contest was preempted by Vehicle Code sections 23109, 23109.2, and 23109.5. The demurrer was overruled, and he sought a petition for writ of prohibition. The appellate court here denied the writ. The Vehicle Code sections dealing with speed contests and exhibitions are complimentary to and not in conflict with the San Diego Municipal Code sections dealing with spectators at such activities.…

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