Skip to content
Name: People v. Smith
Case #: H020031
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/01/2002
Subsequent History: Pub. status to partially published 5/30/02. Rev. denied 8/14/02.

Appellant was charged with 18 violations of Penal Code section 288 for lewd acts with his son over a seven year period. The information was filed in 1998, and included 3 counts which were alleged to have occurred in 1989, 1990, and 1991, prior to the six year period covered by the statute of limitations. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 68 years in state prison. On appeal he argued that the pre-1992 convictions should be reversed because they were barred by the statute of limitations. Further, the other convictions should be reversed because the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sherwin
Case #: C030485
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/15/2000
Subsequent History: None

Where the superior court granted a 1538.5 motion, but did not dismiss the matter, the defendant's dismissal remedy in this Cartwright Act prosecution was to make a Penal Code section 995 motion. The superior court could then review the sufficiency of the indictment in light of its earlier ruling on the suppression motion. Although prior 995 motions had been brought by defendants, the intervening granting of the 1538.5 motion suppressing much of the evidence was a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant renewal of the 995…

View Full Summary
Name: Saffold v. Newland
Case #: 99-15541
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 07/17/2000
Subsequent History: None

A district court erred when it failed to toll the statute of limitations for the period within which Saffold was pursuing state habeas relief. Saffold's conviction for murder was affirmed in 1992. In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was enacted, which imposed a one-year statute of limitations for state prisoners filing federal petitions for habeas corpus. Since Saffold's conviction preceded passage of the AEDPA, the limitations period began running on AEDPA's effective date, April 24, 1996, and would have expired on April 23, 1997, unless it was tolled. Saffold filed his first…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gofman
Case #: B139753
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 11/06/2001
Subsequent History: Depublished after recall of remittitur and opn. vacated; subsequent opn. at: 97 Cal.App.4th 965.

Depublished: see subsequent history notes. An indictment was brought against the six defendants charging them with insurance fraud offenses. The factual basis for the indictment was an alleged conspiracy and various overt actions taken to defraud insurance companies with false claims stemming from eight staged car accidents. Six of car accidents also formed the factual basis for a prior federal indictment against the same defendants alleging mail fraud offenses. The defendants entered guilty pleas on certain of the federal offenses under a plea bargain agreement. Here, the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Catlin
Case #: S016718
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/16/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. on 9/26/01; rehg. den. on 9/26/01

Appellant was not denied due process of law because there was a nine-year delay between the murder of his fourth wife and the prosecution. The delay was justified because there was insufficient evidence that appellant had poisoned his wife with paraquat until the similar poisoning of his mother occurred. Further, the justification for the delay far outweighed the weak showing of prejudice caused to appellant. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search. Since the search in question was consensual, the motion would have been meritless. Counsel was not ineffective for failing…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brown
Case #: D035066
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/02/2001
Subsequent History: Rehg. Denied 8/23/01. Rev. Denied 11/14/01

Furth and Bondy were long time friends who each suffered from apotemnophilia, the desire to have a limb amputated. Bondy was 79 years old and had had heart surgery 10 years earlier. In 1998, Furth arranged to have defendant, whose medical license in California had been revoked in 1977 for gross negligence and who was not licensed to practice medicine in Mexico, amputate Furth’s leg in Tijuana, with postoperative care in a San Diego hotel for 3 or 4 days. Furth changed his mind while waiting at the Tijuana clinic. About two weeks later, Bondy had…

View Full Summary