New Criminal Case Law

December 21, 2019

Defendant must pay funeral expenses for his victim who died during a fight

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYRON JACOB TROUT-LACY, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 13, 2019, No. C1882419) 2019 WL 6816928

Summary: Tyron Jacob Trout-Lacy (defendant) fought with his victim, who was high on methamphetamine and had heart disease. Trout-Lacey punched the victim in the face multiple times and slammed his head against the ground. After first responders were called, they restrained the uncooperative victim in an effort to render medical aid. However, the victim and died.

Issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding, in the context of a victim restitution order, that defendant’s conduct caused the victim’s death. We find no error and affirm.

December 14, 2019

Police need a warrant to enter a home when shots are fired in a high crime area

by Uthman Law Office

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADAN RUBIO, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2019, No. A152455) 2019 WL 6797405

Summary: Police may not break down a door and enter an apartment when the owner refuses to invite them in to investigate after shots were fired in a high crime neighborhood. The Fourth Amendment requires circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that someone in the apartment stood in need of emergency aid, or that some other exception to the warrant requirement applied. The need to render emergency aid justifies warrantless entry only where officers have “specific and articulable facts” showing that an intrusion into the home was necessary. (People v. Ovieda (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1034, 1043 (Ovieda).) It is not enough that officers seek to rule out “the possibility that someone … might require aid.” (Id. at p. 1047.)

Adan Rubio’s appealed his conviction by plea to possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1), a plea entered after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence found in his apartment (Pen. Code, § 1538.5).1 The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence was gathered in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court reversed his conviction and remanded to allow defendant to withdraw his plea.

November 24, 2019

Police may seize a dashboard camera without a warrant after an accident

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Tran, 2019 WL 5958335 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2019)

Background:

Robert Tran was convicted of reckless driving, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23103, subdivision (a) and was sentenced to three years’ probation with 30 days in custody.

October 8, 2019

Franklin Proceedings available to juvenile lifers sentenced after People v. Franklin (2016) was decided.

by Uthman Law Office

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.)

October 3, 2019

California Court of Appeal Rules Possession of Burglary Tools Includes Constructive Possession

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Bay, 2019 WL 4564854 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.), 1 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2019)

The Stop and Search

A Napa County Sheriff’s deputy was on patrol at 2:00 a.m. on September 9, 2017, when he noticed a Cadillac SUV parked illegally near a popular overlook. The deputy approached and saw three people in the vehicle, including Bay, in the driver’s seat. When asked what they were doing, Bay said “they were just sitting there looking at the view and asked … if they were doing something wrong.” The deputy cited a no-parking sign and asked Bay for identification. Bey had none and provided a false name. Knowing that Bay was on post-release community supervision (PRCS) and subject to a warrantless search, the deputy asked him to get out of the vehicle.

September 28, 2019

Parole Hearing Transcripts Are Not Part of Record of Conviction in SB 1437 Hearings

by Uthman Law Office

Felony Murder Rule Changed by SB 1437

Senate Bill No. 1437 revised the felony murder rule in California. Under the felony murder rule, someone who aided and abetted an underlying felony was strictly liable for murder if a co-participant killed someone during the commission of the felony (People v. Cavitt (2004) 33Cal 4^th, 187, 197.) SB 1437 amended Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e) effective January 1, 2019. Now a participant in an enumerated felony in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven:

The person is the actual killer.

September 21, 2019

Aider and abettor found guilty of felony-murder special circumstance is not eligible for re-sentencing under SB 1437

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Gutierrez-Salazar, 38 Cal. App. 5th 411, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178 (Ct. App. 2019), reh’g denied (Aug. 30, 2019)

Defendant Dionicio Gutierrez-Salazar was by a jury of two murders for homicides committed in 2013 and 2015. As to the 2013 homicide, defendant was convicted of first degree murder on a felony-murder theory.

SB 1427 Amends Felony Murder Rule in California

September 14, 2019

Hearsay Admissible to Deny Dismissal or Reduction of Marijuana Convictions under Proposition 6

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Hall, No. 2D CRIM. B292330, 2019 WL 4267761 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2019)

Proposition 64 and reduction of marijuana convictions

Proposition 64, an initiative measure known as “the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act,” amended section 11360 and added new sections 11361.8 and 11362.1. (Stats. 2017, ch. 27 § 129.) It reduces or eliminates penalties for marijuana offenses.

August 25, 2019

Counsel Must Be Appointed on Immigration Motion to Vacate a Conviction

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Millan Rodriguez, 2019 WL 3852665 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)

Vacating a conviction because of inability to understand immigration consequences (Penal Code Section 1473.7)

On January 1, 2017, Penal Code section 1473.7 went into effect. It allows a defendant to challenge a conviction based on a guilty plea where prejudicial error affected the defendant’s ability to understand the immigration consequences of the plea.

August 13, 2019

Correction of a sentencing error is not “resentencing” a defendant but merely “correcting an abstract of judgment”

by Uthman Law Office

(People v. Abdullah (Aug. 1, 2019, No. B290563) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 709].)

In 2002, Warith Deen Abdullah was convicted of 13 counts of armed robbery and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to 48 years four months in state prison. The sentence included firearm enhancements under Penal Code former section 12022.531 that were mandatory at the time of the sentencing. In 2017, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) sent a letter to the trial court calling attention to errors in Abdullah’s abstract of judgment. Before the trial court, Abdullah argued that the court must hold a new hearing to sentence him “in the same manner as if he … had not law that came into effect after his original sentencing.

Abdullah argued that the court must exercise its discretion whether to strike his firearm enhancements pursuant to recently enacted Senate Bill No. 620 The trial court refused to consider striking the enhancements and instead simply corrected the errors in the abstract of judgment without altering the length of Abdullah’s sentence.