Racial Justice Act (RJA)

Name: Sanchez v. Superior Court
Case #: E083015
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/08/2024

No error where trial court removed defendant’s deputy public defender from the case, over defendant and counsel’s objection, due to conflict of interest based on counsel’s alleged potential RJA violation (PC 745). Defense counsel allegedly told the prosecutor to offer defendant a better plea bargain because the prosecutor and defendant were from the same racial group. Defense counsel has a duty to investigate any potential RJA violation, but investigating one’s own potential unconscious bias is not possible, creating an actual conflict justifying counsel’s removal. Dissent deemed removal unwarranted because no conceivable RJA violation occurred.

The full opinion is available on the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, review granted
Case #: C100856
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/29/2024
Subsequent History: Review granted 1/15/25 (S288202)

The Court of Appeal holds that the Racial Justice Act permits a defendant to file a stand-alone postjudgment discovery motion before filing a habeas corpus petition. Additionally, an order denying a postjudgment discovery motion under the Act is not appealable, rather a defendant’s remedy is by writ of mandate. [Editor's Note: This court expressly disagreed with In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, which held that a trial court lacks authority to entertain a postjugment discovery…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Corbi
Case #: D081490
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/25/2024
Subsequent History: Modified without change in judgment, petition for rehearing denied 11/20/24.

A defendant may not raise an RJA claim for the first time on direct appeal, as the traditional rules of forfeiture apply. Defendant forfeited his argument on appeal that the prosecutor’s remarks about his interest in white women were racially discriminatory under the RJA because he failed to bring a motion under the RJA in the trial court. The statutory language and legislative history indicate that review of a Penal Code section 745 claim, like any other appellate claim, is subject to the general appellate rules of preservation and forfeiture of claims that could have been but were not made…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062
Case #: D083970
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/06/2024
Subsequent History: Petition for review granted 12/11/24 (S287339)

The Racial Justice Act (RJA) does not authorize a freestanding motion for discovery; it only authorizes discovery in a pending proceeding under section 745 (a).  The RJA did not create an exception to the general rule that there is no statutory authority for a trial court to entertain a postjudgment motion that is unrelated to any proceeding then pending before the court. The trial court’s denial of the discovery motion was therefore not an appealable order, because the trial court had properly summarily denied defendant’s related petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a prima facie case.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Vigil (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 688 – Depublished
Case #: F085762
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/28/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered depublished (S287213)

The 5DCA holds the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s prematurely filed motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA), finding the defendant, whose case is final, and who is currently serving a prison sentence for murder, falls within the last phase of retroactive eligibility, commencing January 1, 2026 (PC 745(j)(5)). The 5DCA determined the defendant did not fall under section 745(j)(3), which provides relief to those “currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Howard
Case #: H050156
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/27/2024

Appellant made a prima facie case the prosecution violated the RJA by asking him about his connections to East Palo Alto. Appellant provided the trial court information about East Palo Alto’s historical reputation and demographics, and the recognized connection between a person's place of residence, racial group, and negative stereotypes, facts that, if true, establish that there is more than a mere possibility that the prosecutor used racially discriminatory language or otherwise exhibited racial bias towards appellant. Held: Conditional reversal of the judgment and remand to the trial court to hold an RJA hearing.

The full opinion is available on the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wilson
Case #: S118775
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/05/2024

In an automatic appeal in a capital case, the Supreme Court affirms the judgment and holds, inter alia, that: (1) failure to comply with PC 859.7 does not automatically render photo lineup unduly suggestive; (2) jury instruction listing level of certainty as factor in evaluating eyewitness identification does not violate constitutional due process; (3) any error in excluding officer impeachment evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (4) prosecution witness was not unlawfully coerced by police; (5) EC 1202 error in refusing to admit inconsistent statements of hearsay declarant was harmless under Watson; (5) evidence of hearsay declarant’s state of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Frazier
Case #: S148863
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/05/2024

In an automatic appeal in a capital case, the Supreme Court affirms the judgment in its entirety and holds, inter alia, that: (1) there was no good cause to stay the appeal for defendant to file a RJA motion (PC 745), as the claim was not “intertwined” with issues on appeal; (2) substantial evidence supported giving a flight instruction (PC 1127c, CALCRIM 372) and the instruction correctly states the law; (3) defendant's Faretta motions were untimely because they were made after the start of trial, and their denial is therefore evaluated under the nonconstitutional abuse of discretion standard; (4) defendant’s…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Singh
Case #: F084642
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/27/2024

Defendant’s Racial Justice Act (RJA) claim was forfeited because he failed to raise the issue in the trial court. Singh, who is from India, was convicted of first degree murder for killing his daughter-in-law, who was unfaithful to her husband. For the first time on appeal, he argued that his interview with police, as translated, infused the trial with implicit bias in violation of the RJA (Pen. Code, § 745), based on police references to "honor killing." The Court of Appeal affirmed. Despite AB No. 1118, which amended section 745 to authorize a defendant to raise an RJA claim on…

View Full Summary
Name: Bonds v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 821
Case #: D082187
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/14/2024

When denying defendant’s motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA), the trial court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard that ignored that bias can be unconscious and implied as well as conscious and express. After a traffic stop, Bonds was charged with carrying a concealed firearm as a misdemeanor. He filed an RJA motion, arguing there are significant racial disparities in local policing, particularly with regard to the nature and frequency of traffic stops. At a hearing on the motion, Bonds offered the testimony of three expert witnesses and the police officer who stopped him. The officer…

View Full Summary