Discovery - post-trial discovery in death penalty or LWOP cases
Baca v. Superior Court (C062609, Third Dist., 8/31/10) Cal.App.4th
Discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 may be denied on ground that it is sought to support a third habeas petition, and therefore is not "upon the prosecution of a postconviction writ of habeas corpus."
Discovery - Penal Code section 1054.9 postconviction discovery
Barnett v. Superior Court (S165522, 8/26/10) Cal.4th
"(1) Because section 1054.9 provides only for specific discovery and not the proverbial "fishing expedition" for anything that might exist, defendants seeking discovery beyond recovering what the prosecution had provided to the defense before trial must show a reasonable basis to believe that specific requested materials actually exist. But they do not additionally have to show that they are material within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady) and its progeny.
(2) Section 1054.9 does not govern materials in the possession of out-of-state law enforcement agencies that merely provided the prosecution with information or assistance under the circumstances of this case."
Double jeopardy - acquittal on some counts
Brown v. Superior Court (B221980, Second Dist., 8/31/10) Cal.App.4th
Double jeopardy bars retrial because, (1) in the case of one victim, the jury acquitted petitioner of offenses, all of which were alleged to have been committed within the same five-month interval, and the prosecutor failed to show that none of the acquittals pertained to the offense the court agreed to permit the prosecutor to retry, which was also alleged to have been committed in the same five-month interval; and (2) in the case of the other victim, the jury acquitted petitioner of continuous sexual abuse of a minor based upon the same conduct and during the same 22-month interval alleged in four counts the court agreed to permit the prosecutor to retry.
Escape - insufficient evidence
People v. Bailey (H034382, Sixth Dist., 8/26/10) Cal.App.4th
Evidence insufficient to show escape from prison under Penal Code section 4530 because although defendant broke out of his cell and breached a number of interior barriers, he remained within the boundaries of the facility. There was evidence of attempted escape, but trial court did not instruct the jury on attempt.
Fines and fees - no showing of ability to pay
People v. Pacheco (H034454, Sixth Dist., 8/31/10) Cal.App.4th
Attorney fees, criminal justice administration fee and probation costs improperly imposed, as no finding of ability to pay made. Fees should not have been imposed as conditions of probation, either.
Habeas corpus - death penalty - "shell" petition seeking extension of time
In re Morgan (S162413, 8/30/10) Cal.4th ; In re Jimenez (S167100, 8/30/10) Cal.4th
"Cursory" one-claim habeas petition, without supporting exhibits, asking court to defer decision until habeas counsel had adequate opportunity to investigate claims to be raised in an amended petition is granted when defendant had to wait 8 1/2 years for counsel's appointment, after invoking his statutory right to the court's appointment of habeas counsel pursuant to Government Code section 68662. Corrigan dissents from approval of "shell" petitions: "It is our obligation to find qualified counsel for capital habeas cases. We should seriously consider how we are discharging that obligation in light of the delays the majority describes. It is not, however, our proper role to help one class of convicted inmates evade a federal statute of limitations."
Probation - condition that defendant not re-enter country illegally
People v. Laufasa (A127159, First Dist., 9/9/10) Cal.App.4th
Trial court had authority to order probationer to not re-enter country illegally if he was ever deported. Even though power to regulate immigration is exclusively federal (De Canas v. Bica (1976) 424 U.S. 351, 354) not every state activity affecting aliens is preempted. (In re Adolfo M. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1232.) See also People v. Campos (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 917, 921 (illegally entering U.S. after deportation also violates implicit condition that defendant obey all laws).
Probation - extension of probationary period
People v. Minor (C057609, Third Dist., 9/8/10) Cal.App.4th
Probationer was given adequate notice by probation officer's request for extension of probationary period contained in a progress report to the court. Probation may be extended without a finding of an actual violation (here defendant had not made enough progress). See People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091, 1100.
Sentencing - juvenile - 84 to life is cruel and unusual
People v. Mendez (B217683, Second Dist., 9/1/10) Cal.App.4th
Eighty-four year to life sentence imposed on juvenile who did not commit homicide or inflict great bodily injury, and which makes him ineligible for parole until well beyond life expectancy violates cruel/unusual punishment prohibition.
