San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON DUANE WAGSTAFF, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., June 12, 2025, No. H050597) 2025 WL 2938987, at *1, review denied (Oct. 15, 2025)

Summary:  Wagstaff was found guilty of felony false imprisonment and related offenses arising out of a domestic violence incident. He was sentenced to16 months in prison.

Wagstaff, a Black man, contends the trial court violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Racial Justice Act, or RJA) on multiple occasions during different stages of the proceedings. His trial counsel did not object to any of these statements under the RJA, so the Court held  that Wagstaff’s claims were forfeited on appeal. He contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to one statement the trial court made at Wagstaff’s sentencing hearing. The Court concluded this claim was without merit because Wagstaff has not shown his trial counsel’s conduct constituted deficient performance.

THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent; EDGARDO ORTIZ GUEVARA, Real Party in Interest. (Cal., Oct. 9, 2025, No. S283305) 2025 WL 2860065, at *1–2

Summary: In 2009, Guevara was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 28 years to life following his third strike conviction, undrr the “Three Strikes” law. (See Pen. Code, former §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) In 2012, voters enacted the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. (Prop. 36) (Reform Act or Act).) The Reform Act limited indeterminate life sentences for non-serious, nonviolent third strike offenses. Under the Reform Act, a defendant convicted of a non-serious, nonviolent third strike instead receives a sentence of double the term of the current felony. (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), (2)(C).) The Reform Act authorizes defendants “presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment” pursuant to the Three Strikes law for a third non-serious, nonviolent strike to file a petition for a recall of sentence and request resentencing per the Reform Act. The Reform Act provides that courts may deny petitions of defendants determined to pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The trial court denied Guevara’s 2013 petition for resentencing under section 1170.126 after determining that his release would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

In 2021, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 483, which retroactively invalidated certain sentencing enhancements and requires courts to recall and resentence defendants with invalid enhancements. Under Penal Code section 1172.75, the Legislature directed resentencing courts to apply “the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and … any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” “Resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.”

People v. United States Fire Insurance Company (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 1, 2025, No. D085717) 2025 WL 2792119, at *1–3

Summary: United States Fire Insurance Company (United) appeals from a trial court order denying its motion to set aside summary judgment on a bail bond forfeiture. United claims that because the trial court failed to forfeit bail at the criminal defendant’s first unexcused failure to appear when lawfully required, the bond was exonerated and the subsequent entry of summary judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal affirmed because the trial court was not divested of jurisdiction to forfeit the bail bond on the date it ordered forfeiture.

BACKGROUND

Hernandez v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 24, 2025, No. A173010) 2025 WL 2726476, at *1

Summary: In Burgos v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 817 (Burgos), the Court of Appeal analyzed Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (g)(2) (Section 1050(g)(2)) which  allows a continuance of a criminal trial when the prosecutor assigned to the case has another trial in progress. A trial is “in progress” only when the judge overseeing the other trial is “available and ready to try the case to conclusion, the court has committed its resources to the trial, and the parties are ready to proceed.” The Court affirms the Burgos test and rejects the People’s attempt to eviscerate it.

Background: Hernandez charged with  sex offenses, filed a petition for a writ of mandate to direct respondent San Francisco Superior Court to grant his section 1382 motion to dismiss the information, claiming the trial court erred in granting continuances sought by real party in interest (the People) under Section 1050(g)(2), which provides that “ ‘good cause’ ” for continuing a trial in a case involving specified sex offenses includes the circumstance that “the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court.” Here, the trial court erred in concluding the prosecutor was involved in another trial “in progress” within the meaning of Section 1050(g)(2) at the time of two March 2025 continuances.

Angulo v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2025, No. E085719) 2025 WL 2650050, at *1

Summary: Angulo was charged by the Riverside County District Attorney’s office (the People) with misdemeanor driving under the influence per Vehicle Code sections 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b). Angulo entered a not-guilty plea and requested military diversion per Penal Code section 1001.80. Argulo had been an active member of the United States Marine Corps for five months and he had served five years in the Marine Corps Reserve. The trial court denied defendant’s request finding that he had not served the threshold of active duty for one year or one day of combat to qualify for military diversion. The trial court relied on the Legislature’s intent in enacting Penal Code section 1001.80 and the “Memorandum of Understanding” from the Riverside County Veteran Treatment Center ( MOU), to deny Angulo’s request for pretrial diversion.

Angulo filed a writ of mandate in the appellate department of the superior court. The People conceded that Penal Code section 1001.80 did not have a one-year requirement of military service to be eligible for diversion. The superior court issued a decision finding that Penal Code section 1001.80 does not contain any time limit for military service and remanded to the trial court for it to reconsider the denial of diversion. The superior court opinion also held that defendant was not entitled to pretrial diversion as a matter of law, but rather, if the trial court found defendant was eligible, the trial court had the discretion to consider whether he was suitable for diversion.

Segura v. Superior Court of Orange County (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2025, No. G065079) 2025 WL 2505320, at *1–2

Summary: Military diversion for misdemeanors

“A defendant charged with a misdemeanor is eligible for diversion if both of the following apply: (1) The defendant was, or currently is, a member of the United States military.  (2)(A) The defendant may be suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of their military service.” (Pen. Code, § 1001.80, subd. (b).)

VICTOR MICHAEL ARRIAGA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2025, No. B340795) 2025 WL 2490639, at *1

Summary: Arriaga petitioned for a peremptory writ of prohibition directing the trial court to grant his motion to dismiss the information for violation of his state speedy trial right and his federal right to due process. Arriaga argued that a 16-year delay between the People’s filing of a felony complaint for wrongful diversion of construction funds in 2007, and his arraignment on the count in 2023, resulted in prejudice to him that outweighed any justification for the delay. The Court agreed and granted Arriaga’s petition.

In 2006, the Los Angeles Building and Safety Department issued a stop-work notice for lack of permits for the construction and because the work Arriaga had performed was not code compliant. An investigation discovered Arriaga was not a licensed contractor in California. The Contractors State License Board (CSLB)referred the case to the district attorney.

People v. Baldwin (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025, No. F088265) 2025 WL 2462748, at *1–2

Summary: Baldwin was sentenced to 44 years to life. In 2024, he petitioned for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) (section 1170(d))1 and pursuant to People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, (Heard). Section 1170(d)(1)(A) provides for recall and resentencing only to those juveniles who were sentenced to an explicit term of life without parole (LWOP). Heard held that section 1170(d) violates equal protection principles to the extent it excludes from relief those juveniles sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP. The trial court concluded appellant’s sentence was not the functional equivalent of LWOP, and denied relief under section 1170(d)(1)(A).

On appeal, Baldwin argues the functional equivalence of LWOP should be determined under the formulation of functional equivalency articulated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, (Contreras) in the context of the  Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. Contreras analyzed whether sentences of 50 and 58 years to life imposed on juveniles for nonhomicide crimes were functionally equivalent to juvenile LWOP sentences the United States Supreme Court had categorically prohibited in Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, (Graham) and were, therefore, unlawful under the Eighth Amendment. Contreras evaluated whether the juvenile sentences at issue provided the type of “ ‘meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation’ ” that Graham requires, and ultimately found the sentences unlawful under the Eighth Amendment.