Skip to content
Name: People v. Patton
Case #: D074344
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/06/2019

Appellate waiver did not prevent defendant from challenging electronic search condition on appeal without a certificate of probable cause. Defendant pleaded guilty to felony grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) after he and three others stole electronic devices, including three iPhones and two Apple watches, from a store. As part of the plea deal, defendant agreed to "give up my right to appeal . . . any sentence stipulated herein." The plea form stated, "As conditions of probation I may be given . . . conditions deemed reasonable by the Court." At…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Centeno
Case #: D073977
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/08/2019

Under Penal Code section 1203.06, a court cannot grant probation to someone who commits a robbery with a firearm even if the court had discretion to strike the firearm enhancement. Centeno entered a marijuana dispensary and, holding a gun, announced a robbery. He later escaped after being shot by an employee. Centeno pleaded guilty to assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and possession of marijuana. As to counts one and two, he admitted personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)). The…

View Full Summary
Name: Bontilao v. Superior Court
Case #: H046157
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/24/2019

When a trial court assigns a judge for all purposes to consider a habeas petition challenging the denial of parole, the timeliness of a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 motion to disqualify the judge is governed by the criminal "all purpose assignment" rule. Bontilao filed a habeas petition challenging the denial of parole. His petition was initially assigned to Judge Weinstein "for all purposes," but later reassigned to Judge Zecher "for all purposes." Bontilao filed a section 170.6 challenge against Judge Zecher. It was denied as untimely. The Court of Appeal summarily denied Bontilao's petition for writ of mandate.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Ricardo P.
Case #: S230923
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/15/2019

Opinion by Justice Liu (joined by Justices Cuéllar, Kruger, and Groban). Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which Justices Chin and Corrigan concurred.
Minor's electronics search condition of probation was not reasonably related to future criminality under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, where the burden imposed on the minor's privacy was substantially disproportionate to the condition's goal of monitoring and deterring drug use. Ricardo P., a juvenile, was placed on probation after admitting two counts of felony burglary. The juvenile court imposed an electronics search condition of probation in order to monitor…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wiley
Case #: A154248
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 06/28/2019

Penal Code section 1385 does not authorize a trial court to dismiss a parole revocation petition in the furtherance of justice. In 1991, Wiley was sentenced to a prison term of 26 years to life for murder, robbery, and kidnapping. He was released on parole in March 2017. He then violated parole conditions over the next several months. A parole revocation petition was filed on a number of grounds. The trial court found that Wiley violated parole by failing to return to his housing by curfew, but did not find the other grounds substantiated. Wiley argued…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Arroyo
Case #: G056020
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 06/25/2019

Proposition 57 addresses an inmate's eligibility for early parole consideration but does not dictate the timing of the actual parole suitability hearing. Arroyo was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 35 years to life under the Three Strikes law. He filed a habeas petition in superior court challenging CDCR regulations that, at the time, made three strike offenders serving an indeterminate sentence for a nonviolent offense ineligible for early parole consideration under Proposition 57. After his petition was denied, Arroyo filed a similar habeas petition in the Court of Appeal. An order to show cause issued.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Smith
Case #: B291670
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/16/2019

Penal Code section 1381 (which allows a sentenced defendant to demand that he be brought to trial and sentenced within 90 days in any other criminal proceedings) does not apply to a probation violation proceeding in which the defendant was previously sentenced to a specific term with execution suspended. On reinstating Smith's probation for a grand theft in Los Angeles County, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years and suspended execution of the sentence. Subsequently Smith was sentenced to two years in state prison on another matter in another county. He then sent a letter pursuant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Austin
Case #: D073523
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/24/2019

Defendant's parole condition, which restricted him from contacting the "crime victim(s)" and listed a person who was not a crime victim, was unconstitutionally vague. Austin was charged with domestic violence offenses against his girlfriend Lisa and her adult son, Brent. He pleaded guilty to a single count of assault by force likely to inflict great bodily injury on Brent. He initially received probation but was violated for drug use and was sentenced. When Austin was released on parole he was advised of a parole condition that precluded contact with the "crime victims" and specified Lisa or Brent. In December 2017,…

View Full Summary
Name: In re McGhee
Case #: A153721
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 04/29/2019

CDCR's screening and referral process for parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings, which excludes otherwise eligible inmates based on their in-prison conduct, is inconsistent with the California Constitution. Proposition 57 amended the California Constitution to provide that "[a]ny person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense." (Art. I, § 32, subd. (a)(1).) In carrying out its duty under Proposition 57 to adopt regulations, CDCR promulgated California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3492, which provides that eligible…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Edwards
Case #: A147103
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 04/10/2019

Penal Code section 3051, which mandates youthful-offender parole hearings for most defendants whose crimes were committed before age 25 and who receive de facto life sentences, violates equal protection by excluding youthful offenders sentenced under the One Strike law. In 2012, Edwards and Chioma, both 19 years old, were convicted on multiple counts of sexual assault and robbery committed against two victims. One Strike allegations were found true. Edwards was sentenced to 95 years to life; Chioma to 129 years to life. They challenged on equal protection grounds their exclusion from the provisions of section 3051, which mandates youthful-offender parole…

View Full Summary