San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog
Taxpayer suit against San Francisco Courts for criminal trial delays to go forward
Raju v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App., June 8, 2023, No. A164736) 2023 WL 3883099, at *1–10
Summary: Manohar Raju and other plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their taxpayer action against the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (defendant court), Plaintiffs brought a taxpayer-standing cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy alleged violations of Penal Code provisions that impose a duty on the courts to expedite criminal proceedings, by prioritizing them over civil cases, and to follow specific procedural steps before a criminal trial may be continued beyond statutory time limits.
The trial court sustained the demurrer pursuant to Ford v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 737 (Ford), which held that one department of a superior court may not restrain the implementation of a judgment entered by another department in a prior action. The Court of Appeal found that Ford is not relevant to the taxpayer cause of action and reversed the judgment.
Court finds no evidence to support governor’s reversal of Van Houten parole grant
In re Van Houten (Cal. Ct. App., May 30, 2023, No. B320098) 2023 WL 3712946, at *1
Summary: Van Houten petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2020 grant of parole. Van Houten is serving concurrent sentences of seven years to life for the 1969 murders of Rosemary and Leno La Bianca, which she committed with other members of a cult led by Charles Manson. This is the fourth time a governor has reversed Van Houten’s parole.
The Governor found inadequate Van Houten’s explanation of how she fell under Manson’s influence and engaged in her life crimes. The Governor further found that recent statements Van Houten made were inconsistent with statements she made at the time of the killings, indicating “gaps in Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both.” Van Houten’s most recent criminal risk assessment found her at low risk for violent recidivism, but the Governor found several “historical factors” identified in that assessment “remain salient” to Van Houten’s current dangerousness.
170.6 challenge brought in habeas challenging conditions of confinement is untimely
Garcia v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Cal. Ct. App., May 30, 2023, No. E080436) 2023 WL 3718448, at *1
Summary: Garcia was diagnosed as having porphyria, a rare condition that is potentially fatal, especially if not properly treated. During an attack of porphyria, the skin becomes extremely sensitive to sunlight; sun exposure can cause burning pain and blisters.
Garcia while awaiting trial on charges including murder made a series of requests in that case, for testing, evaluation, treatment, and preventive measures to deal with his porphyria. The trial Judge Anthony R. Villalobos denied Garcia’s ex parte application for multiple measures — including being given protective clothing, being kept out of direct sunlight, and being transported only in air-conditioned vehicles with tinted windows.
Failure to instruct that the alleged predicate offenses must have “commonly benefited” a gang in a “more than reputational” manner was not harmless error
People v. Cooper (Cal., May 25, 2023, No. S273134) 2023 WL 3637806
Summary: Cooper was convicted of first degree murder with gang and firearm enhancements. He appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme Court granted review . The Supreme Court held that trial court’s error was not harmless in failing to provide jury instruction that alleged predicate offenses must have commonly benefited gang in more than reputational manner.
Assembly Bill 333
Public Defender Petitions Supreme Court over Trial Delays
In the Supreme Court of California, Miguel Angel Estrada, Petitioner, v.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. Andrew Kuhaiki, Petitioner, v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. PETITION FOR REVIEW of the decision of the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District Division One, Nos. A166474, A166508
Summary: Following the covid-19 lockdown, the San Francisco Superior Court reopened all of its criminal trial courtrooms in June 2021. However, during the thirteen months that followed, it operated these courtrooms at only 56 percent capacity. And in mid-2022, trial courtrooms we’re closed on 176 occasions due to judges’ vacations, which had become the leading cause for closed courtrooms. The superior court’s backlog grew by forty percent since reopening. The superior court held that the covid-19 pandemic justified continuing petitioners’ trials past their statutory deadlines in July and August 2022. On the days of the continuances, multiple courtrooms were closed because of judges’ vacations and routine absences. In denying a petition filed by the San Francisco Public Defender, thd Court of Appeal upheld the good cause finding.
Public Defender Files for Review in Supreme Court
DUI murder conviction under implied malice is not eligible for resentencing under PC 1172.6
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VONDETRICK CARR, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2023, No. E079368) 2023 WL 2820859, at *1
Summary: Carr drove drunk with four children in his car, hitting a pickup truck. One of the children was killed and Carr was convicted of second degree murder. Car was sentenced to a 51 years, 4 months to life in prison.
In 2021, Carr filed a petition to vacate the murder conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition because Carr was not convicted either on a natural and probable consequences theory or under the felony murder rule.
Granting a Penal Code section 1473.7 motion to vacate a conviction and withdraw a plea does not require dismissal of the criminal complaint
People v. Vaca (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 30, 2023, No. A164953) 2023 WL 2706473, at *1
Summary: Vaca successfully moved under Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate his conviction and withdraw his no contest plea. He appealed from the trial court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the criminal complaint against him under the same statute. Vaca contends that, after the trial court granted his motion to vacate his conviction under section 1473.7, the statute required dismissal of the underlying criminal complaint filed against him. The Court of Appeal. disagreed and affirmed the court’s order.
Trial court proceedings and motion to vacate the conviction and withdraw the plea under Penal Code Section 1473.7
Plea to conviction requiring mandatory deportation vacated under under Penal Code section 1473.7
People v. Villalba (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 8, 2023, No. B318353) 2023 WL 2595696, at *1
Summary: Villalba appealed the denial of his motion under Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)1 to withdraw his 2017 no contest plea to a violation of section 273.5 and to vacate his conviction. Villalba asserted that he did not meaningfully understand the actual adverse immigration consequences of the conviction because of misadvice from his lawyer and from the Court. He also maintained that he would not have agreed to the plea if he had understood, and the trial court erred in denying the motion. The Court of Appeal found undisputed evidence demonstrated a reasonable probability that if he had been properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea, he would not have pled no contest to an offense requiring mandatory deportation. The Court we reversed the order and remanded with directions to the trial court to grant the motion and vacate the conviction pursuant to section 1473.7, subdivision (e).
Plea and conviction
Police Officer Testimony by Telephone at DMV Administrative Hearing is Improper when Driver Objects
Ramirez v. Superior Court of Kern County (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2023, No. F082588) 2023 WL 2399712
Summary: A driver petitioned for writ of mandate ordering Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to set aside its driver’s license suspension order following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). The Superior Court granted the petition. DMV appealed as real party in interest. The Court of Appeal held that:
Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) provision, addressing when a presiding officer can conduct a hearing by telephone, applied to administrative per se (APS) adjudicative hearing conducted by DMV; APA’s provision, stating that a presiding officer “may not” conduct a hearing by telephone if a party objects, and regulation adopted to implement the APA provision in context of DMV adjudicative hearings, are mandatory, substantive procedural protections; and substantial evidence supported implied finding that motorist was prejudiced by police officer testifying by telephone.