Reasonable Doubts - July 14, 2010
Counsel - ineffective assistance - reversing trial court's finding
People v. Jones (A126005, 1st Dist, 6/30/10) Cal.App.4th
Court of Appeal first reversed due to Lake County Judge Arthur Mann's error in refusing to hear motion alleging ineffective assistance affecting a suppression motion, and remanded with order to conduct hearing. Court held hearing and found no ineffective assistance. Court of Appeal reversed again. The court was quite critical of the judge's reasoning, finding it "triply flawed." The majority expressed concern with "the trial court minimization of the significance of the inadequate investigatory assistance." The majority warns that "the right of indigent defendants to receive the assistance of counsel that is constitutionally required may well depend on the attentiveness of judicial officers to this issue." It also warned that the problem may involve many other defendants in Lake County. Matter remanded for a hearing before a different judge.
Ed. Note: major woodshedding.
Counsel - ineffective assistance - remand to Georgia Supremem Court
Sears v. Upton (09-8854, 6/29/10) U.S.
In per curiam decision, Supreme Court remands ineffective assistance of counsel case back to Georgia high court, finding that court used wrong standard to determine that counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance: "it is plain from the face of the state court's opinion that it failed to apply the correct prejudice inquiry we have established for evaluating Sears' Sixth Amendment claim." Scalia and Thomas dissent. Quelle surprise.
Death penalty - Issues
People v. Hartsch (S074804, 6/28/10) Cal.4th
Issues: Wheeler motion; recording of conversation with co-defendant; excluded testimony; jury instructions; aggravating evidence in penalty phase; victim impact evidence; lingering doubt; denial of modification motion; challenges to death penalty law.
Death penalty - issues presented and rejected
People v. Tate (S031641, 7/8/10) Cal.4th
Issues: restrictions on voir dire; excusal of jurors for cause; admission of statements; alleged prosecutorial misconduct (making faces, among other things); jury instructions; challenges to California death penalty law.
Death penalty - Issues
People v. Williams (S029490, 6/28/10) Cal.4th
Issues: admissibility of defendant's statements; accomplice instructions; prosecutorial misconduct (use of Biblical references) which "strayed beyond the bounds of permissible argument based upon religion (but harmless);" instruction on commutation power; challenges to death penalty law.
Death penalty - Issues
People v. Lomax (S057321, 7/1/10) Cal.4th
Counsel could waive time over defendant's objection when it was in order to prepare the case, and any denial of statutory time right required showing of prejudice on appeal. Court's order that defendant wear stun belt was appropriate exercise of discretion, given prior assault on bailiff. Detention for traffic violation was supported by probable cause. Dismissal of two jurors based on answers was proper. No Batson/Wheeler error. Defense counsel properly prevented from asking questions that lacked a good faith basis and invited juror speculation. Constitutional challenges rejected.
Fees - $30 Government Code section 70373 assessment
People v. Phillips (F058534, 5th Dist, 7/2/10) Cal.App.4th
Date of conviction, not arrest, governs whether Government Code section 70373 assessment may be imposed. Agrees with People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410.
Habeas corpus - state - conviction and death penalty affirmed
In re Valdez (S107508, 7/8/10) Cal.4th
Petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel's decision not to introduce evidence that blood on defendant's pants was not the victim's was tactical because DA might have then tested for blood on the gun, and since defendant had confessed to counsel, counsel had every reason to believe the testing would prove the victim's blood was on the gun. Same conclusion on counsel's decision not to introduce evidence of third-party culpability. Petitioner also failed to show counsel did not adequately investigate and present mitigation evidence.
Impoundment - of car driven on revoked or suspended license
Alviso v. Sonoma County Sheriff's Dept (A126241, 1st Dist, 6/30/10) Cal.App.4th
Vehicle Code section 14602.6 does not violate equal protection, due process or Fourth Amendment. Owner has right to speedy administrative hearing. Agrees with Conner v. City of Santa Ana (9th Cir. 1990) 897 F.2d 1487 (no requirement of judicial tribunal).
Infraction - trial conducted in defendant's absence
People v. Disandro (E049726, 4th Dist, 7/7/10) Cal.App.4th
Traffic court failed to make findings that defendant was knowingly and voluntarily absent at start of trial on speeding charge, so it was not authorized under Vehicle Code section 40512.5 and/or Penal Code section 1043(e) to proceed with the trial. Error harmless under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, as defendant did not show result would have been different had she been present.
Misconduct - governmental - sanctions adequate
United States v. Struckman (08-30312, 9th Cir, 6/29/10) F.3d
Suppression of a "great deal of evidence" was sufficient sanction for governmental misconduct regarding investigation of defendant. Ruling is a massive indictment of the actions of the IRS agents, and wonders why they have not been investigated.
Sentencing - weapons and gangs
People v. Mesa (D056280, 4th Dist, 7/13/10) Cal.App.4th
Penal Code section 1170.1(f) and (g) prevent trial court from imposing gang enhancement along with firearm and GBI enhancements. Penal Code section 654 also prevents consecutive sentencing on firearm possessions as evidence showed defendant had continuous possession of one firearm. But defendant properly sentenced consecutively for criminal street gang statute violation since it punishes conduct and intentions separate from those giving rise to assault convictions.
See also People v. Spirlin (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 119, 130; People v. Sanchez (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1310-1313; People v. Herrera (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1456.
Sex offender registration - predicate offense dismissed after PC 290 conviction
In re Watford (C062550, 3d Dist, 7/9/10) Cal.App.4th
Fact that predicate offense in Massachusetts was dismissed after defendant found guilty of failing to register in California does not require that Penal Code section 290 conviction be vacated. See Lewis v. United States (1980) 445 U.S. 55 (felon in possession of firearm conviction upheld even when underlying felony subject to collateral attack).
Weapons - Second Amendment right
McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521, 6/28/10) U.S.
Court extends Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. ___ to the states.
Witnesses - unavailability due to deportation
People v. Herrera (S171895, 7/1/10) Cal.4th
Trial court did not err by allowing deported witness' preliminary hearing testimony to be read to jury after DA showed that witness had been deported to El Salvador and that country had no treaty providing for extradition to testify as witness.
