San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

People v. Stubblefield (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 26, 2024, No. H048598) 2024 WL 5231745, at *1–2

Summary: A jury found Stubblefield guilty of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and false imprisonment of Jane Doe, an intellectually disabled woman. The jury found he personally used a firearm in the commission of the first two offenses. The trial court sentenced Stubblefield to a term of 15 years to life in prison.

The prosecution alleged Stubblefield threatened Doe with a handgun while she was at his house. The police decided not to search Stubblefield’s house after Doe reported the incident, and no gun was introduced into evidence. In closing arguments, the prosecutor asserted the police made the decision not to search Stubblefield’s house based partly on the fact that he was a famous Black man. The prosecutor claimed a search would have created “a storm of controversy,” and added, “Can you imagine in Morgan Hill when they search an African-American –,” defense counsel objected. The trial court sustained the objection but gave the jury no admonishments with respect to this part of the prosecutor’s arguments.

People v. Superior Court of Ventura County (Cal., Dec. 12, 2024, No. S281950) 2024 WL 5100944

Summary: The Supreme Court held that: The Superior Court had no authority to reduce wobbler offense; The order reducing wobbler offense was not appealable;An unauthorized order reducing wobbler offense is act in excess of jurisdiction and is therefore reviewable by writ when balance of interests supports intervention of higher court; and The Court of Appeal’s temporary stay of all proceedings deprived Superior Court of jurisdiction to recommence proceedings at request of prosecution.

Facts: In 2018, Mitchell was charged with one felony count of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The prosecution alleged that Mitchell had a prior “strike” conviction for battery with serious bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 243, subd. (d), 667, subd. (d)(1).) Five years later, with a jury trial about to begin, the trial court ordered that the felony count be reduced to a misdemeanor,  under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b).1 The court then granted a defense motion to continue the trial and referred the matter for screening for entry into a veterans court program.

People v. Clymer (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 4, 2024, No. A166279) 2024 WL 4983030, at *1

Summary: Clymer, pled no contest to possession of diazepam for sale. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of a motion to quash and suppress evidence obtained from searches of electronic devices. The first was a warrantless search of electronic devices used by an individual who purchased drugs from defendant and who died prior to the search. The second was a search pursuant to a warrant of defendant’s own cell phone. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Background

Sanchez v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 22, 2024, No. E083015) 2024 WL 4717472, at *1–2

Summary: Sanchez filed for a writ of mandate ordering respondent superior court to vacate its order directing the San Bernardino County Public Defender (public defender) to assign a new attorney from its office to represent him in his criminal proceedings. The trial court issued the order after receiving evidence that the deputy public defender currently assigned to represent him made remarks citing Sanchez’s race as a factor to consider during plea negotiations, potentially in violation of the Racial Justice Act (RJA) (Pen. Code,1 § 745). The Court held that Sanchez failed to establish an abuse of discretion calling for reversal of the trial court’s order and denied  the petition.

Background

Mountain View Police Department v. Krepchin (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 4, 2024, No. H050872) 2024 WL 4664207

Summary:Police department filed application for emergency gun violence protective order against Krepchin , and after it was issued, applied for three-year gun violence restraining order (GVRO). The Superior Court, Santa Clara County, granted GVRO, and defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeal held that:

People v. Serrano (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 29, 2024, No. C100856) 2024 WL 4611666, at *1

Summary: Serrano appealed from an order denying a stand-alone postjudgment motion for discovery related to potential violations of the California Racial Justice Act (Act). (Pen. Code,§ 745, subd. (d).) The issue is whether the trial court’s order is appealable. The trial court denied Serrano’s motion on the merits. The Court of Appeal addressed the threshold question of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion in the first instance and concluded that it did and that the Act permits a defendant to file a stand-alone postjudgment discovery motion before filing a habeas corpus petition. This Court agreed with the holding of Division One of the Fourth Appellate District in In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1071, petition for review pending, petition filed October 11, 2024, S287339 (Montgomery), that an order denying a postjudgment discovery motion under the Act is not appealable, while disagreeing with their conclusion that the trial court lacks authority to entertain the motion. The Act’s plain language permits discovery, and in doing so, it does not differentiate between preconviction and postconviction proceedings. The Act’s language contemplates that discovery has occurred before a defendant files a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of section 1054.9 as allowing discovery prior to filing a habeas corpus petition and for review of a discovery order in mandate rather than by appeal supports this conclusion. (See In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 688, (Steele).) Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Price v. Superior Court of Butte County (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 23, 2024, No. C100920) 2024 WL 4553015, at *1–4

Summary: In 2006, Price was admitted to the State Department of State Hospitals as a sexually violent predator. In 2022, the superior court found that Price was suitable for conditional release. Later, before placing Price in the community, the superior court reconsidered its order granting Price’s petition for conditional release, held a new hearing, and found him unsuitable.

Price argues that the superior court erred in denying him the assistance of experts in defending his suitability at the contested hearing. Price also contends that the superior court erred in subsequently finding him unsuitable for conditional release, because the ruling was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in finding Price unsuitable for conditional release and issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order.