People v. Luu (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 24, 2025, No. G063066) 2025 WL 1189508, at *1–2
Summary:
In 2001, Phuoc Thien Luu was 17 years old when he participated in an attempted home invasion robbery with three other men. One of the men shot the homeowner who survived Police later killed the shooter when they tried to arrest him.
People v. Virgen (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2025, No. B333314) 2025 WL 1032450
Summary: Virgen was convicted of second-degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The Court of Appeal held that:
Thr trial court committed instructional error when it used two pattern jury instructions that, when read together, could have allowed jury to find defendant guilty of second-degree murder under uncharged-conspiracy theory, without finding that he acted with malice aforethought, and the error was not harmless.
People v. Gomez (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2025, No. H051210) 2025 WL 1024681, at *1
Summary: Police found a flare gun in Gomez’s possession. Based on an officer’s testimony describing the flare gun, the trial court found Gomez guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon under Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). The Court of Appeal held the prosecution must prove the flare gun was designed to be used as a weapon. Here, the record contained insufficient evidence to support such a finding. The court vacated the conviction on that count.
The court reversed the judgment, vacated the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, and remanded the matter for resentencing.
People v. Rodriguez (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2025, No. B332704) 2025 WL 1023731, at *1
Summary: Rodriguez appealed from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, contending that the trial court erred in admitting statements he made in a letter to the Board of Parole Hearings in 2011, and statements he made to a Forensic Psychologist in a 2016 Comprehensive Risk Assessment evaluating his suitability for parole. We find no error and affirm.
Im 1984, Rodriguez pled guilty to second degree murder. The prosecutor explained that the plea agreement was appropriate because no witnesses were available to identify Rodriguez as the shooter. The prosecutor also noted that evidence revealed Rodriguez was under the influence of phencyclidine (PCP) at the time of the crime, which may have entitled him to a voluntary intoxication defense.Rodriguez pled guilty and was sentenced to 15 years to life for second degree murder.
People v. McGhee (Cal., Apr. 3, 2025, No. S169750) 2025 WL 1000847, at *1
Summary: A jury convicted McGhee of three counts of first degree murder and four counts of attempted murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664, subd. (a); The jury found true the special circumstances that he committed multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and that he committed two of the three murders while participating in, and for the benefit of, a criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). The first jury deadlocked as to penalty. On retrial of the penalty phase, a different jury returned a verdict of death.
The California Supreme Court reversed McGhee’s conviction and sentence because of the erroneous discharge of a juror during guilt phase deliberations,
Summary: Annette Gaylene Batten served a life term for murder and was released on lifetime parole in 2017. In 2023, she committed two parole violations. Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (h) required the court to remand her to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Batten appealed, arguing that under a statute enacted in 2020, someone convicted of murder but released on parole after July 2020 would have been placed on parole for only three years and woud have been eligible for punishments other than mandatory remand to the CDCR. (§§ 3000.01, as enacted by Stats. 2020, ch. 29, § 18, 3000.08, subds. (f) & (g).) Batten claims her right to equal protection was violated under strict scrutiny or, in the alternative, rational basis review. The Court of Appeal affirmed because a rational basis review applies and that there is a rational basis to treat the two groups of inmates differently.
Background
Batten was convicted of first degree murder in 1996 and sentenced to life in prison. She was released on parole in August 2017. She performed well on parole, but at a parole revocation hearing in December 2023, Batten admitted two violations of the conditions of her parole based on a 2021 driving under the influence arrest. The trial court ordered Batten’s parole revoked and remanded her to the custody of the CDCR and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) for future parole consideration. In June 2024, the Board denied Batten’s request for parole for one year.
People v. Gray (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2025, No. C099048) 2025 WL 783249, at *1
Facts: A jury found Gray guilty of second degree burglary of a vehicle, attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle, conspiracy to commit theft, vandalism, and possession of burglar’s tools. The trial court sentenced Gray to an aggregate term of five years four months. On appeal, Gray argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of second degree burglary of a vehicle and attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
An amended information charged Gray with second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 459; count one), grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); count two), attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle (§§ 459, 664, subd. (a); count three), conspiracy to commit the crime of theft (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 484, subd. (a); count four), vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); count five), and possession of burglar’s tools (§ 466; count six). The trial court declared a mistrial on count two and a jury found Gray guilty of all remaining counts.
People v. Martinez (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 7, 2025, No. E082657) 2025 WL 429628
Summary: Martinez was charged with grand theft, acting as contractor without a license, requiring a downpayment in excess of $1,000, and unlawfully receiving payments in excess of the work performed, filed motion to dismiss based on a violation of his rights to a speedy trial. The Superior Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. People appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeal held that:
Andrew v. White (U.S., Jan. 21, 2025, No. 23-6573) 2025 WL 247502
Summary: Supreme Court’s decision in Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S.Ct. 2597, that Due Process Clause can in certain cases protect against introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence at criminal trials, was a “holding,” for purposes of federal habeas review of state court’s adjudication of merits of prisoner’s federal claim alleging that State introduced irrelevant evidence about her sex life and her failings as mother and wife.
Facts: An Oklahoma jury convicted Brenda Andrew of murdering her husband and sentenced her to death. At trial the State introduced evidence about Andrew’s sex life and about her failings as a mother and wife, much of which it later conceded was irrelevant. Andrew argued in a federal Habeas petition that this evidence had been so prejudicial as to violate the Due Process Clause. The Court of Appeals denied the petition because it incorrectly believed that no holding of the Supreme Court established a general rule that the erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence could violate due process. However, the Supreme Court had made clear that when “evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a mechanism for relief.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991).
Navarro v. Cervera (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 22, 2025, No. A169830) 2025 WL 262412, at *1
Summary: Navarro appeals from an order denying her request to renew her domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Cervera. Navarro asserts the trial court abused its discretion in concluding her fear of future abuse was unreasonable. The Court of Appeal reversed with directions that the trial court grant the renewal request and decide whether the DVRO should be renewed for five or more years, or permanently.
Background
San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog