Skip to content
Name: Thompson v. Superior Court
Case #: B144625
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/31/2001
Subsequent History: None

Petitioner was charged with possession of cocaine and two prior strikes. While he acknowledged that the courts have held that proof of strike priors is not required at a preliminary hearing, he argued in this writ proceeding that in light of the United States Supreme Court opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, the prior convictions were elements of the charged offense, and therefore were required to be proved at the preliminary hearing. The appellate court here disagreed, holding that Apprendi did not alter the principle that California law does not require proof of strike priors at…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thomas
Case #: B144240
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 08/01/2001
Subsequent History: None

In a trial for evading an officer, appellant was charged with two prior prison terms pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defense counsel waived appellant's right to a jury trial on the prior prison terms, and the trial court found them true. Appellant was not personally asked whether he waived his right to a jury trial on the priors. Following the court trial on the prison terms, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466. Here, the appellate court held that in terms of recidivism findings which enhance a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gibson
Case #: B141781
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/29/2001
Subsequent History: None

The trial court properly admitted two manuscripts seized from the residence which described operation of a prostitution enterprise. The manuscripts were properly authenticated, and their potential for prejudice did not outweigh their probative value. In a prosecution for pimping, in violation of Penal Code section 266h, subdivision (a), appellant was not harmed by the prosecution's failure to include the solicitation portion of the definition of the offense in the information. The evidence presented at both the preliminary hearing and at trial clearly gave appellant adequate notice of the charges against her. In a prosecution for pimping,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Coelho
Case #: H020689
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/05/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 9/19/01

In a Three Strikes case where the defendant was charged with multiple counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14, the jury found the defendant guilty of ten counts and found his prior "strikes" to be true. The trial court found that consecutive sentences were mandatory and imposed ten 25-years-to-life terms. Following his first appeal, the court remanded for resentencing because the trial court had misunderstood the scope of its discretion to sentence concurrently, and to give the trial court an opportunity to make a record to permit a reviewing court to determine the factual…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Coelho
Case #: H020689
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/05/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 9/19/01

In a Three Strikes case where the defendant was charged with multiple counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14, the jury found the defendant guilty of ten counts and found his prior "strikes" to be true. The trial court found that consecutive sentences were mandatory and imposed ten 25-years-to-life terms. Following his first appeal, the court remanded for resentencing because the trial court had misunderstood the scope of its discretion to sentence concurrently, and to give the trial court an opportunity to make a record to permit a reviewing court to determine the factual…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Walter S.
Case #: B144386
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/06/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 9/19/01; rev. dismissed 10/13/04: S099120

Editor's note: review granted on this case. There was sufficient evidence to support a finding that appellant, a minor, possessed a sawed-off shotgun with the specific intent to promote criminal conduct by gang members in violation of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), where appellant held the shotgun between his legs while driving with another Malditos gang member in a car appellant knew had been hijacked earlier that day by Malditos gang members. Penal Code section 186.30, which was added by initiative measure Proposition 21, and which provides that a minor convicted of Penal Code section 186.22,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Byrd
Case #: C036033
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/20/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 9/19/01

In a case arising under the Three Strikes Law, appellant was sentenced to a determinate term of 115 years, plus an indeterminate term of 444 years to life. The appellate court here rejected appellant's claim that the sentence violated the constitutional ban on cruel and/or unusual punishment. Given the fact that appellant committed 12 armed robberies, permanently disabling one of the victims, and had three prior robbery convictions, the sentence was not disproportionate. "Respectfully disagreeing" with Justice Mosk, in his concurring opinion in People v. DeLoza (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 585, the court here held that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Zangari
Case #: A091689
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 06/21/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 10/10/01 as S099489

(Editor's note: review granted) Characterizing People v. Marquez (1993)16 Cal.App.4th 115 as wrongly decided, the court held that Oregon statutory definition of theft had always made clear that as long as there was a purpose of depriving the owner of property so as to create an unreasonable risk of permanent loss, the mens rea element of theft was satisfied, even if the intent was to deprive the owner of possession for less than a permanent period. Also, the entire record of the Oregon conviction showed the asportation element of burglary was satisfied. Thus, appellant's prior Oregon burglary conviction was a…

View Full Summary
Name: Calcano-Martinez v. INS
Case #: 00-1011
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 06/25/2001
Subsequent History: 150 L.Ed.2d 392; 121 S.Ct. 2268

Lawful permanent residents of the United States who are subject to administrative final removal orders because they were convicted of aggravated felonies, may not obtain direct judicial review of their removal, but may seek habeas corpus relief in the federal Courts of Appeal to review such orders.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Barro
Case #: B144905
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/24/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was convicted of a drug offense and admitted a "strike" based on a prior mayhem conviction, which had been dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 at the end of a probationary period as a part of the plea bargain agreement. The appellate court here found the sentence unauthorized, since it was dismissed under section 1385. Although under the terms of the plea bargain appellant was advised that the conviction would still be "priorable," dismissal under section 1385 operates as a matter of law to erase the prior conviction, and a contrary conclusion is not compelled because…

View Full Summary