Evans v. Shiomoto (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2019, No. D073969) 2019 WL 5886970, at *1–7
The DUI stop, arrest and suspension
Evans was pulled over for driving with his off-road-only lights illuminated while on a “highway,” in violation of Vehicle Code section 24411. The officer observed signs of intoxication and Evans consented to a chemical breath test that registered a blood alcohol level above 0.08 percent.
Gardner v. Appellate Division of Superior Court of San Bernardino County (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 12, 2019, No. E066330) 2019 WL 5886241, at *1–4
Right to appointed counsel on appeal in a misdemeanor case
The California Supreme Court held that, when the People appeal from a suppression order in a misdemeanor case, the defendant, if indigent, has a right to appointed counsel. This case was remanded to determine whether the Public Defender’s appointment for purposes of trial continues for purposes of the appeal, or whether, the appellate division must appoint new counsel. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court is not statutorily authorized to appoint the Public Defender under these circumstances.
Trial court erred in dismissing re-sentencing petition for felony murder
People v. Ramirez, 2019 WL 5387737 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), 5 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2019)
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2019 WL 5387737
In re Jeremiah S. (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 18, 2019, No. A155856) 2019 WL 5302782, at *1–7
The robbery, detention, pat search and arrest arrest of Jeremiah S.
On July 2, 2018, Ornin Gosuwin was carrying a shoulder bag and holding an iPhone as she walked on Spear Street toward Market Street in San Francisco. Two young men, both wearing hoodies, came from around the corner. Gosuwin stopped to let the young men pass. One of them pushed her left shoulder and caused her to fall to the ground and both stood over her and pulled her bag and phone away. The assailants continued on Market Street in the direction of the Embarcadero.
People v. Sanchez, 2019 WL 5304531 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2019)
Angel Sanchez (Sanchez) was charged by re-filed complaint with robbery, assault with a deadly weapon on a transit passenger, and receiving stolen property. The magistrate granted Sanchez’s motion to dismiss the complaint for prosecutorial vindictiveness, The Superior Court, San Francisco County, No. MCN17010380, Garrett L. Wong, J., denied reinstatement of complaint. The People appealed.
Dickerson v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty., 40 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1, 252 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871, 874–82 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2019)
Petitioners contend that delays in charging each of them resulted in a deprivation of due process rights under the California Constitution. In both cases, the trial court found that Petitioners suffered prejudice due to the prosecution’s delays in charging them. The trial court then erred in failing to require competent evidence justifying the delay by the prosecution.
People v. Buggs-Ten Month delay in filing of complaint
History of San Francisco County Jail #4
The San Francisco County Jail at 850 Bryant St. is formally known as County Jail #4 is described by the Sheriff’sDepartment as “a traditional linear jail facility located on the 7th floor of the Hall of Justice. This jail is the maximum security facility of the San Francisco County Jail system. The rated capacity for this jail is 402 inmates and it houses both sentenced and pre-sentenced inmates. Deputy Sheriffs monitor inmate conduct and patrol in cells located on each side of a central corridor or “mainline”. This jail offers inmate programs such as parenting, independent study, alcoholics anonymous, and narcotics anonymous. Parenting skills classes and inmate-child visitation is also offered to mend and heal broken family relationships.״
(See: City and County of San Francisco Sheriff’s Department https://www.sfsheriff.com/jail_info.html)
People v. Wehr, No. E070345, 2019 WL 5166227, at *1–8 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019)
Proposition 47 and Receipt of Stolen Property
The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47) amended Penal Code § 496 so that receiving any stolen property worth $950 or less is a misdemeanor. (§ 496, subd. (a).) Receipt of a stolen vehicle (Penal Code §496, subd. (a).) is a ‘wobbler,’ an offense that may be punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Here, the Court of Appeal determined which statute governs when a defendant receives a stolen vehicle worth $950 or less.
Barajas v. Appellate Division of Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2019 WL 4894231 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2019)
Arraignment on Misdemeanor charge of carrying a dirk or dagger
Eliseo Barajas was arrested and arraigned on a misdemeanor charge of carrying a dirk or dagger. Barajas sought to have the case dismissed for lack of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 991.1. Barajas argued that his initial detention was not based on conduct that could give rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal conduct had occurred. He also argued that the evidence establishing probable cause was illegally obtained and should be excluded from the probable cause determination. And he asked that the misdemeanor complaint be dismissed.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff & Respondent, v. MICHAEL DAMION JUDE MEDRANO, Defendant & Appellant, No. E070042, 2019 WL 4894333 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019)
Medrano sentenced to life at age 19
Michael Damion Jude Medrano was 19 years old when he committed the crimes of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count 1), two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 2 & 4), and one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3). Medrano was sentenced in December, 2017 to 25 years to life, plus seven years. His sentencing took place one and one-half years after the Supreme Court decided People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), which held that a juvenile offender who is sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence, must be “given adequate opportunity at sentencing to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to his youth.” (Id. at p. 269.) The Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the juvenile offender had been given an adequate opportunity to make such a record. (Id. at pp. 286-287.)
San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog
