Latest 6 Cases: Graylee v. Castro (Business Law), In re Febbo (Constitutional Law), People v. Barton (Criminal Law)

The Least Interesting Branch: Why Supreme Court Leaks Reveal Little

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent series of articles published on CNN.com purporting to reveal deep secrets about the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations. Dorf points out that the so-called revelations about the Court reveal little or nothing that Court watchers don’t already know or infer, which, paints a reassuring picture of the Court as operating behind closed doors exactly as we expect it to.

Read More

Graylee v. Castro

Docket: G057901(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: August 4, 2020

Judge: Moore

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Landlord - Tenant

Defendants-tenants John and Rosa Castro (the tenants) leased a residential property from plaintiff-landlord Fred Graylee. The landlord brought an unlawful detainer action against the tenants, alleging they owed him $27,100 in unpaid rent. The day of trial, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment in which the tenants agreed to vacate the property by a certain date and time. If they failed to do so, the landlord would be entitled to enter a $28,970 judgment against them. The tenants missed their move-out deadline by a few hours and the landlord filed a motion seeking entry of judgment. The trial court granted the motion and entered a $28,970 judgment against the tenants under the terms of the stipulation. The tenants appealed, arguing the judgment constituted an unenforceable penalty because it bore no reasonable relationship to the range of actual damages the parties could have anticipated would flow from a breach of the stipulation. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed, and reversed and remanded this matter for further proceedings.

In re Febbo

Docket: G057667(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: August 4, 2020

Judge: Richard D. Fybel

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Rick Ryan Febbo was deemed ineligible for early parole consideration because he was serving a sentence and has prior convictions for indecent exposure, an offense requiring registration as a sex offender under California Penal Code section 290. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge the decision denying him eligibility for early parole consideration. The trial court concluded the regulation making him ineligible for such consideration violated Proposition 57 and granted Febbo relief. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal held that indecent exposure under Penal Code section 314 was a nonviolent felony offense as that term was used in section 32(a)(1). The CDCR regulations were therefore invalid to the extent they deny early parole consideration to inmates based solely on a current or prior conviction for indecent exposure. As a consequence, Febbo could not be denied eligibility for early parole consideration solely based on his convictions for that offense.

People v. Barton

Docket: F076599A(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: August 4, 2020

Judge: Rosendo Peña, Jr.

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In September 2017, defendant pleaded guilty to furnishing methamphetamine and maintaining a place for the sale of a controlled substance. On October 23, 2017, defendant was sentenced. In the interim, on October 11, 2017, Governor Brown approved Senate Bill No. 180, which went into effect on January 1, 2018. Senate Bill 180 amended Penal Code section 11370.2 by eliminating its three-year enhancements for most drug-related prior convictions. On remand from the California Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal reconsidered this case in light of Assembly Bill 1618, which added Penal Code section 1016.8. Defendant relied on the Estrada rule and contends that Senate Bill 180 is retroactive, thus invalidating the portion of her sentence imposed under former section 11370.2. Defendant argues that the waiver provision is void by retroactive application of Assembly Bill 1618. The court agreed with the parties that Senate Bill 180 and Assembly Bill 1618 apply retroactively to this case. Therefore, the plea agreement is unenforceable and the trial court cannot approve of the agreement in its current form. The court remanded for the parties to enter a new plea agreement or to proceed to trial.

People v. Galvan

Docket: B300323(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: August 4, 2020

Judge: Frances Rothschild

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 on his murder conviction. The trial court found that defendant was ineligible for relief because his conviction included a felony-murder special circumstance, which required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a major participant in the underlying robbery and that he acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court held that the proper remedy for challenging a special circumstance finding is by a petition for habeas corpus, not a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court agreed with People v. Gomez (June 29, 2020, D076101) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2020 WL 3960294] (Gomez), which held that the defendant's petition was in effect a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the special circumstance findings against the defendant. The court disagreed with People v. Torres (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1168, 1179, review granted June 24, 2020, S262011, and the result in People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 85, review granted July 22, 2020, S262835, because it is inconsistent with the court's approach to the construction of section 1170.95.

People v. Lawson

Docket: A154481(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: August 4, 2020

Judge: Peter J. Siggins

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2007, Lawson brutally raped and sodomized Victim C. A year later, she saw Lawson and called the police, who came to her location and detained him. C participated in a field show-up and identified Lawson as the rapist but did not hear from the police again. In 2016, Lawson was arrested for the rapes of Victims A and B. C participated in a photographic lineup and again identified Lawson. Lawson was charged with 10 counts of sexual assault. Following a mistrial, C refused to testify in the second trial. The court found her unavailable as a witness and admitted her prior testimony from the preliminary hearing and the first trial into evidence. The jury was unable to reach verdicts on the counts involving A and B but convicted Lawson of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and forcible sodomy against C. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court violated his state and federal rights to confrontation when it determined C was unavailable and admitted her testimony from his first trial and the preliminary hearing and that Code of Civil Procedure section 1219 (b), which prohibits the incarceration of sexual assault victims for their refusal to testify, also impaired his state and federal confrontation rights because the court had no sufficient means to compel C’s testimony.

People v. Nash

Docket: F079509(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: August 4, 2020

Judge: Meehan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant, who was under 18 years old at the time of the crime, was convicted of first degree felony murder with the special circumstance finding that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of burglary. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. In a prior opinion, this court reversed the jury's burglary special-circumstance. On September 30, 2018, the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 1437 into law, which amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. In this appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in finding that Senate Bill No. 1437 unconstitutionally amends Proposition 7. The court rejected the People's claims that Senate Bill No. 1437 unconstitutionally amends Proposition 115 and Proposition 9 and that it violates the separation of powers doctrine. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings under section 1170.95.