Skip to content
Name: People v. Uriostegui (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 271
Case #: B325200
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 04/05/2024

A peremptory challenge violates Penal Code section 231.7 when a facially neutral reason to remove a juror is based on a presumptively invalid reason, absent certain permitted reasons and findings by the trial court. Appellant was charged with residential burglary. During voir dire, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to dismiss T.N., who had a Spanish surname, because of her “lack of life experience,” reasoning that T.N. was young, had worked at Taco Bell, was not currently employed, and seemed reluctant, timid, and malleable. The defense objected, arguing that the reasons were invalid under section 231.7. The trial court denied…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113
Case #: D081445
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/26/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered published 4/3/2024

Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s 2022 request for mental health pretrial diversion (Pen. Code, § 1001.36), where the denial occurred before statutory amendments went into effect on January 1, 2023. In 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s pretrial request diversion under section 1001.36 finding that he did suffer from a mental health disorder but that it did not contribute in any way to the offense. Defendant was subsequently convicted of two felonies in November 2022 and sentenced on January 11, 2023, ten days after the effective dates of certain amendments to section 1001.36. Held: Reversed. Prior to the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Woodward) (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 679
Case #: H051311
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/14/2024

Prohibition against double jeopardy does not bar the refiling of a murder charge where the trial court’s dismissal order was not clearly based on legal insufficiency of the evidence. In 1992, Woodward was charged with murder. The case went to trial and twice resulted in deadlocked juries. After the second mistrial, the trial court dismissed the case under Penal Code former section 1385, “in the furtherance of justice for insufficiency of the evidence.” In 2022, the murder charge was refiled based on new DNA evidence. On Woodward’s motion, the trial court dismissed the case on double jeopardy grounds. The prosecution sought…

View Full Summary
Name: Gomez v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 778
Case #: G062526
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/15/2024

Petitioner’s Penal Code section 1172.6 proceeding was a continuation of his plea hearing and thus his peremptory challenge of the prior judge was untimely. Gomez pled to one count of attempted murder and two enhancements and was sentenced to 11 years. He later filed a section 1172.6 petition and sought to disqualify the judge (the same judge who originally sentenced him) by way of a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 motion, which was denied. Gomez filed a petition for writ of mandate. Held: Petition denied. Whether a petitioner may file a section 170.6 peremptory challenge turns on whether the…

View Full Summary
Name: Lunsted v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 138
Case #: E081770
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/01/2024

Trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the Facebook factors when ruling on defendant’s motion to quash the People’s subpoena duces tecum seeking his c-file. In preparation for an upcoming Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing hearing, the prosecution issued a subpoena duces tecum to CDCR seeking Lunsted’s “c-file” in its entirety. Lunsted moved to quash, arguing the subpoena was overbroad and sought privileged and immaterial medical and mental health records. The trial court concluded that the c-file was likely to contain information “germane to the resentencing procedures” and denied the motion. In his writ petition in the Court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152
Case #: E082250
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/01/2024

Assembly Bill No. 2361’s recent amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 do not require that any one factor be given greater weight than others in determining whether the minor is amenable to rehabilitation. In 2019, a juvenile wardship petition alleged that M.R. committed murder and other offenses when he was 17 years old. In 2023, following a remand from the Court of Appeal, the juvenile court considered recent amendments to section 707 and again transferred M.R. to criminal court, finding four of five section 707 factors weighed in favor of the transfer, but that there was insufficient evidence to…

View Full Summary
Name: Persiani v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 48
Case #: G062648
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 02/28/2024

Trial court has authority under Penal Code section 1370.01(b)(1)(A) to order treatment through mental health diversion for a mentally incompetent misdemeanor defendant charged with driving under the influence. Defendant was charged in four misdemeanor cases with DUI (Veh. Code, § 23152(a)). While the charges were pending, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial. Although defendant was found suitable for outpatient treatment through mental health diversion (Pen. Code, § 1370.01), the court concluded defendant was ineligible for such treatment because Vehicle Code section 23640 prohibits diversion in cases where a defendant is charged with DUI. Defendant petitioned for writ…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Robinson (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 133
Case #: A165379
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 03/01/2024

A certificate of probable cause is required for claims of error concerning pretrial mental health diversion (Pen. Code, § 1001.36) following a guilty plea, including ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant pleaded no contest to two felonies. He appealed but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (CPC). On appeal, he argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request pretrial mental health diversion, that the trial court violated its sua sponte duty to consider defendant’s eligibility for diversion, and that the claims were cognizable on appeal without a CPC because they were based on the “sentence or other matters occurring…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1048
Case #: D081713
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/21/2024

Substantial evidence supported the superior court’s involuntary antipsychotic medication order. Based on the opinion of a licensed psychiatrist and a licensed psychologist, the trial court found that Garcia was mentally incompetent to stand trial and that she lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding the administration of antipsychotic medication. On appeal, Garcia alleged numerous errors with the court’s order authorizing the state hospital to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication to her. Held: Affirmed. A trial court is required to permit involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication if it finds one of three sets of conditions to be true. (§ 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(III) & (ii).) Here, Garcia…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hall (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1116
Case #: B326944
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/22/2024

Trial court properly terminated pretrial mental health diversion and reinstated criminal proceedings pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.36(g) based on defendant’s uncharged criminal conduct. Shortly after being placed on pretrial mental health diversion, defendant was expelled from his residential treatment program for assaulting fellow participants and destroying property while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Defendant absconded but was taken into custody six months later. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in reinstating criminal proceedings because he did not meet the statutory criteria for having his diversion terminated. Held: Affirmed. Where a defendant has been placed…

View Full Summary