Latest 4 Cases: In re Shelton (Civil Rights), California v. Broadbent (Constitutional Law), People v. Matthews (Criminal Law)

Bringing Home the Supply Chain

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JONATHAN F. HARRIS

NYU law professors Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan F. Harris describe how the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the United States to confront the problem of unchecked globalization. Estreicher and Harris argue that once the pandemic subsides, U.S. policymakers should, as a matter of national security, mandate that a minimum percentage of essential supplies be manufactured domestically.

Read More

Unconstitutional Chaos: Abortion in the Time of COVID-19

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, MARY ZIEGLER

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler discuss the abortion bans implemented in several states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Grossman and Ziegler explain why the bans are constitutional and comment on the connection between the legal challenges to those bans and the broader fight over abortion rights.

Read More

In re Shelton

Docket: A154983(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: J. Anthony Kline

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1993, Shelton was sentenced to a prison term of 19 years to life after pleading no contest to the second-degree murder of his mother-in-law and assault with a firearm on her sister-in-law. Shelton had no prior criminal history. Parole hearings in 2016 and 2018, were his fifth and sixth. Shelton’s “Comprehensive Risk Assessment,” from 2016, concluded he presented a low risk of violence. The psychologist who evaluated Shelton noted “confusion and memory loss secondary to multiple traumatic brain injuries” Shelton had suffered in the military. Shelton, 64 years old in 2019, was permanently mobility impaired and blind/vision impaired. Shelton filed a habeas corpus petition. TIn November 2019, Shelton was again denied parole. The court of appeal ordered a new hearing for consideration of all of the relevant factors. The record suggests Shelton’s cognitive condition will never allow him to demonstrate the kind of insight into his crimes that the panels have been demanding. According to the doctor, Shelton’s neurocognitive disorder was a significant contributing factor in his commission of the offense and “it is unlikely that his disorder will ever allow him to give a coherent narrative about his motivations at the time of the crime.” That lack of insight had not led to violent outcomes in prison. The panel also failed to adequately consider Shelton’s elderly status and the magnitude of his disabilities.

California v. Broadbent

Docket: C086848(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Renner

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After a court trial, defendant Jason Broadbent was convicted of five counts of selling an assault weapon (counts 1, 5, 15-17), six counts of selling a large-capacity magazine (counts 2, 6, 13, 18-20), nine counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (counts 3, 7, 11-12, 23- 27), three counts of selling heroin (counts 4, 8, 28), four counts of unlicensed sale of a firearm (counts 9- 10, 21-22), and one count of selling methamphetamine (count 14). The court also found true that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction and three prior prison terms. After denying defendant’s "Romero" motion, the court sentenced defendant to a total term of 53 years eight months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) his 2001 conviction could not be used as a prior strike or to enhance his sentence under Penal Code section 667.5(b); (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his Romero motion to strike his prior strike conviction; (3) all of his sentences for selling a large-capacity magazine and all but one of his sentences for possession of a firearm should have been stayed pursuant to section Penal Code 654; and (4) the court imposed unlawful terms for counts 9, 10, 14, 21, and 22. In supplemental briefing, defendant argued: (1) his convictions for selling large-capacity magazines under section 32310 must be reversed because the statute violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) his prior prison term enhancements should have been stricken based on recent amendments to section 667.5; and (3) he was entitled to a hearing on his present ability to pay various fines and fees pursuant to California v. Duenas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019). The Court of Appeal agreed the trial court miscalculated the sentence it imposed with respect to counts 9, 10, 14, 21, and 22; defendant’s sentences on counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 11-13, and 18-20, and all but one of his sentences on counts 23-27 should have been stayed pursuant to section 654; and defendant's prior prison terms enhancements had to be stricken. The case was remanded for resentencing, but affirmed in all other respects.

People v. Matthews

Docket: A157723(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Stewart

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Matthews was charged in three cases, with allegations of a prior strike conviction and five prior prison terms for felony convictions that subjected him to sentence enhancements under Penal Code 667.5(b). He entered into a plea agreement with specific sentences and completed a change of plea form for each case in which he wrote the sentence for that case. The form also was executed by his attorney, the prosecutor and the court. For Case 1 he pled guilty to felony grand theft, with a three-year prison term that would be doubled to six years because of the prior strike. He admitted four of the prior prison term allegations, with four one-year terms; his total sentence would be 10 years, concurrent with the sentences in the other cases. For Case 2, Matthews pled guilty to resisting arrest, with a three-year term. In Case 3, Matthews pled guilty to unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, with a three-year term. The court imposed the stipulated sentences. The court of appeal, after determining that it had jurisdiction although Matthews had not sought a certificate of probable cause, held that the four one-year terms must be stricken based on a revision to Penal Code section 667.5(b) that eliminates such terms for all but certain prior sexual offenses. The other stipulated sentences imposed should remain intact, thereby reducing his total prison term to six years.

In re Austin J.

Docket: B299564(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Frances Rothschild

Areas of Law: Family Law, Native American Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning seven of Mother's children. Leslie is the presumed father of the four older children and Edward is the presumed father of the three younger children. The court held that the juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). In this case, California was the children's home state for purposes of the UCCJEA, and thus California courts have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination. The court also held that the duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 were not met with respect to Edward's side of the family, but were met with respect to Mother's and Leslie's side of the family.