San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

People v. Perez (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 19, 2026, No. H053314) 2026 WL 777180, at *1

Summary: A police officer’s decision to impound a driver’s vehicle pursuant to the Vehicle Code solely to prevent further illegal driving does not satisfy the community caretaking function.

Perez pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The police found drugs in Perez’s vehicle during an impoundment and inventory search following a traffic stop. The police also found a firearm and more drugs when later executing a search warrant on a hotel room linked to Perez.

THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; JOB URIAH TAYLOR, Real Party in Interest. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2026, No. B346062) 2026 WL 622265

Summary: Penal Code section 1001.36 authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant with a qualifying mental disorder who agrees to comply with mental health treatment (§ 1001.36, subd. (c)(3)) and will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety “if treated in the community.” (§ 1001.36, subd. (c)(4).)

The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged Taylor with several counts of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, alleging Taylor viciously attacked four individuals with a metal pipe. The defense moved for mental health diversion to a community facility, supported by a psychological evaluation that Taylor suffered a treatable schizoaffective disorder but would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety “if his psychiatric symptoms were controlled with treatment.”

People v. Morgan (Cal., Feb. 26, 2026, No. S286493) 2026 WL 533311, at *1–2

Summary: During a confrontation with law enforcement, Morgan aimed a firearm at police officers, “racked” its slide, and pulled the trigger. The weapon did not discharge and when officers eventually recovered it, it was unloaded. Defendant was convicted of resisting an officer by “the use of force or violence” under Penal Code section 69, subdivision (a).  On appeal of his conviction, he argues  that assault (§ 240) is a lesser included offense of resisting an officer by force or violence. Because there was no evidence the weapon was loaded, he could not be convicted of assault and therefore could not be convicted of resisting an officer under section 69, subdivision (a) (section 69(a)).

The California Supremd Court concluded that assault is not a lesser included offense of resisting an officer by force or violence. Resisting  by force or violence does not require the “present ability” (§ 240) to commit a violent injury, an essential element of assault. s this interpretation.

People v. Zapata (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 10, 2026, No. D084024) 2026 WL 366837, at *1

Summary: A “Perkins operation” is when an undercover operative is placed in a cell with the suspect to obtain information from the suspect. The term derives its name from Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (Perkins).

During a Perkins operation, Zapata admitted to two undercover officers that he murdered Justin Triplett. A jury who heard a recording of Zapata’s confession convicted Zapata of second degree murder. On appeal, Zapata argues the trial court’s admission of his statements violated Miranda because he had invoked his right to an attorney, he did not waive that right when he spoke with the undercover agents, and the involvement of a known law enforcement officer transformed the operation into a custodial interrogation. The Court of Appeal agreed.

People v. Heaps (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 2, 2026, No. B329296) 2026 WL 266465, at *1–4

Summary: The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies in state criminal trials. (Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S.) That right is violated when a judge communicates with a jury during deliberations “without affording defendant and counsel an opportunity to be present.  (People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 69. (Hawthorne).)

Here, the trial court judge sent the judicial assistant, (the JA), into the jury room to speak to the jury about the foreperson’s (Juror No. 4’s) note describing the jurors’ collective concern that a juror (Juror No. 15) did not speak English sufficiently to deliberate and had already made up his mind (the Note). The trial judge did not inquire of the jury or inform trial counsel of the Note’s existence. The JA’s conversations about the Note with the jury were not transcribed.