WPCk,  "W܌h<\˖-r吹k4i#]z_L\kbpf'4 Rh3C\5:W.q#zЖɫr?e0yatEN);m> ۋvcT4;s=[ E1"%{A?)~(#O7z6yP!tv4ڔ5R^{4,Jѫ4n"Qŷs(86c5,G0ЍLխb1tiEH(wi1lW @@y98̂K܃m~|фRŲG3(Yf?JF՞EQp nڡ7P9z!ƺ`,{Smk5vZe돺b֠ϰXj47N*9x/w;09uqvv旨.a W,c9): c#jUN3 % 0x N ^  w 4 % 4 m6 0cM 1u 1u% 72 0w 0C 0 0m 0! 0 0 0D 1u 72k 72tpCp 0U#x 0h 0E 0 0 0p 0 0 0e 0 0 0 07 0 0 0! 0! 0>" 0" 0# 0I$ 0$ 0% 05& 0& 0_' 0'to(p(pS)x)p;*-*p*U @H+ 0A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 0N++ 0T,\\orion\Front_Office_HP4000,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(P$A@AAUSUS.,N> gg::i+003|xU(;3$2#  0  .3  0   x-3MQUY]aeiLarge Bullet3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  x*3MQUY]aeiBullets List http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revnppub/B214707.PDFhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/E047368.PDFhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/D054343.PDF*+ (_2623  .. unpub opin VangPhanakhonKillebrew Rizow]here YoloYanez DinaColeyCarmonyTetreaultDwyer Welf ICWADemson subd DJJ GansMaultsbyVeh.CodePen.Code CPCBoykinYurko Fahn DowlChakos*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revnppub/C060532.PDFhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/C063661.PDFhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/H034382.PDFhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H034382M.PDFhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/B224400.PDF ##>d#http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/F057384.PDF(A Z(Times New Roman (Vm$0   (O$(,!$0  0` (#(#  !AXXXXA^SXAXUSUS.,  _  A9A^S? 9A9FirstDistrictAppellateProject  TrainingSeminar ` #^S9#XX^SJanuary21,2011#^SXXY#9^S p #^S9#9^S KeyPendingCasesinthe l  CaliforniaSupremeCourt | #^S9 # N ^SRichard_Braucher_#^S  N#9^S L #^S9'#XX^S StaffAttorney 6 January2011#AXXXX##A^SXAX~#A9A^S  "r ? ?8^Sdd8 ?  KeyPendingCasesintheCaliforniaSupremeCourt#A^SA9#   { (-y3" 3"   32-3  0    InstructionalError!HarmlessError  3݌ `(#(# Ќ    Peoplev.Mil ,S184665(F056605,FifthDist,KernCo.),rev.granted09/29/2010,  d unpub.opin.  d    `   d   Isharmlesserroranalysisappropriatewhenthetrialcourtomitsmultipleelements d  fromajuryinstructiononspecialcircumstancemurder,andifso,wastheerrorharmless d  inthiscase? d    Appellantwasconvictedoffirstdegreemurderandthejuryfoundtruespecial d  circumstanceallegationsthatthemurderwascommittedwhileappellantwasengagedin d thecommissionofarobberyandaburglary.Thecourtfailedtoinstructthejuryonthe d lawofspecialcircumstancesliabilityofaidingandabetting.Specifically,thecourtfailed d toinstructthattherecouldbenoliabilityunlessthejurywassatisfiedbeyonda d reasonabledoubtthatthedefendant:(1)withanintenttokill,aidedandabettedanactor d infirstdegreemurderor(2)withrecklessindifferencetohumanlifeandasamajor d participant,aidedinthecommissionofthecrimewhichresultedinthedeathofahuman d being.TheFifthDistricteliminatedthe intenttokillprong,observingthattherewasno d evidencesupportingaidingandabettingonthattheory.However,itconcludedthatthere d wasoverwhelmingevidencethat(a)appellantwasamajorparticipantand(b)heacted d withrecklessindifferencetohumanlife.Indoingso,thecourtofappealreliedonPeople d v.Williams(1997)16Cal.4th635,whichemployedaChapmananalysisforomissionofa d singleelementinamultiplemurderspecialcircumstancejuryinstructionforaidingand d abetting,therequirementofafindingbythejurythatdefendantactedwithanintentto  d kill. !d   MarkChristiansen,counselforappellant. #d " 3"   3j2-3  0    Evidence!ExpertWitnesses 3j݌%d (#(# Ќ    Peoplev.Vang ,S184212(D054343,FourthDist.,SanDiegoCo.),rev.granted 'h"" 09/15/2010)pub.opin.4 `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/D054343.PDF6`O  7 ! (h##   (1)DidtheCourtofAppealcorrectlyfindthatthetrialcourterredinpermitting *h%% theuseofhypotheticalquestionsoftheprosecutionexpertwitness?(2)Ifso,didthe +h&& CourtofAppealcorrectlyfindtheerrortobeharmless? ,h''   InVang,itwasallegedthatdefendantscommittedanassaultonvictimPhanakhon   forthebenefitof,atthedirectionof,andinassociationwithacriminalstreetgangwith  thespecificintenttopromote,furtherandassistcriminalconductbygangmembers  withinthemeaningofPenalCodesection186.22,subdivision(b)(1).Inresponsetoa  hypotheticalquestioninwhichPhanakhonwasthinlydisguisedas youngbabygangster,  anexpertopinedthattheassaultwasforthebenefitofthegangandgangmotivated.   VangheldthatthiswaserrorunderPeoplev.Killebrew(2002)103Cal.App.4th644,   whichholdsexpertopiniononaspecificdefendantssubjectiveknowledgeandintentis   impermissible.      JohnDwyer,counselforappellant.   " 3"   32-3  0    Delinquency  3݌ (#(# Ќ    InreW.B. ,S181638(E047368,FourthDist.,RiversideCo.)rev.granted  05/12/2010,pub.opin.4 `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/E047368.PDF6D`OX  7     IsWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection224.3,whichrequirestribalnotification  undertheIndianChildWelfareAct(25U.S.C.section1901etseq.)ofajuvenile  delinquencyproceeding(Welf.&Inst.Code,section602)whenajuvenileischarged  withanactthatwouldbeacrimeifcommittedbyanadult,preemptedbecauseitexpands  jurisdictiontoproceedingsexpresslyexcludedfromtheAct?    InreW.B.declinedtofollowInreR.R.(3rdDist.2009)180Cal.App.4th185,  whichholdsthatICWAprovisionslimitingtheapplicationofICWAtofostercare  placementsthatarenotbaseduponanactthat,ifcommittedbyanadult,wouldbe  deemedacrimedonotpreemptstatelawapplyingsuchprovisionsindelinquency  proceedingswherethechildisatriskofenteringfostercare,andthat,accordinglythe  stateprovisionsareconsistentwiththeforceandpurposeofthefederallaw.     JonathanDemson,counselforappellant. "    InreC.H. ,S183737(B214707,SecondDist,SantaBarbaraCo.),rev.granted $  09/01/10,unpub.opin.4 `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revnppub/B214707.PDF6`O  7 ! %!! ̀ (1)WasminorineligibleforcommitmenttotheCaliforniaDepartmentofCorrections '## andRehabilitation,DivisionofJuvenileJustice,becausehewasnotfoundtohave ($$ committedanoffenseenumeratedinWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection707, )%% subdivision(b),althoughhisoffensewasenumeratedinPenalCodesection290.008, *&& subdivision(c)?(2)Assumingthejuvenilecourthadthestatutoryauthoritytoordersuch +'' acommitment,didthecourtabuseitsdiscretionindoingsoonthegroundtherewasno  showingthatminorwouldbenefitfromthatcommitmentandbecausethecourtfailedto  adequatelyconsideralternativeplacements?    InC.H.,thejuvenilecourtsustainedanallegationofalewdactonachildunder  theageof14(Pen.Code,288,subd.(a)),andafteraprobationviolation,committed   himtoDJJ.Onappeal,theminorarguedthatthecourthadnoauthoritytocommithimto   DJJbecausePenalCodesection288isnotamongthoseoffenseslistedinWelfareand   InstitutionsCodesection731,whichallowscommitment ifthewardhascommittedan   offensedescribedinsubdivision(b)ofSection707andisnototherwiseineligiblefor   commitmenttothedivisionunderSection733.C.H.disagreed,focusingonWelfareand   InstitutionsCodesection733,subdivision(c),whichprovidesthatawardshallnotbe   committedtotheDJJif themostrecentoffenseallegedinanypetitionandadmittedor   foundtobetruebythecourtisnotdescribedinsubdivision(b)ofSection707,unlessthe   offenseisasexoffensesetforthinsubdivision(c)ofSection290.008ofthePenal  Code.ObservingthataviolationofPenalCodesection288isoneofthesexoffensesset  forthinPenalCodesection290.008,subdivision(c)(2),C.H.divinedlegislativeintentfor  inclusionofPenalCodesection288amongthoseoffenseswhichareDJJqualified.    SusanGans-Smith,counselforappellant.     ` " 3"   3')2-3  0    CertificateofProbableCause  3')T)݌(#(# Ќ    Peoplev.Maultsby ,S182042(C060532,ThirdDist.,YoloCo.)rev.granted  06/30/2010,unpub.opin.4: h `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revnppub/C060532.PDF6*`O*  7 "*    Wasdefendantrequiredtoobtainacertificateofprobablecausetoraiseonappeal  aclaimthathisadmissionsregardingpriorconvictionallegationswerenotknowinglyand  intelligentlymade,eventhoughhewasconvictedbyjuryoftheunderlyingoffense?(See   Pen.Code,1237.5;Peoplev.Fulton(2009)179Cal.App.4th1230.) !   InFulton,defendantwasconvictedofevadinganofficerwithwillfulorwanton # disregard(Veh.Code,2800.2,subd.(a))anddrivingonasuspendedlicense(Veh.Code, $  14601.1,subd.(a);countII).Inbifurcatedproceedings,hewaivedhisrighttoajury %!! determinationandenteredanegotiatedadmissiontoapriorprisontermallegation &"" (Pen.Code,667.5,subd.(b))inexchangefordismissaloftheremainingallegations. '## Fultonlatermovedtowithdrawhisadmissiontothepriorprisontermallegation,butthe ($$ courtdeniedthemotion.Defendantappealedthedenialbutdidnotobtainacertificateof )%% probablecause(CPC).TheThirdDistrictheldthattheissuerequiredaCPC,concluding *&& thatalthoughthedefendantwasconvictedbyjuryofthesubstantiveoffense,his +'' admissiontothepriorprisontermallegationrequiredaCPCbecause PenalCodesection  1237.5appliestoanenhancementallegationtowhichadefendanthasenteredaplea.  (Peoplev.Fulton,supra,179Cal.App.4thatp.1237.)Nopetitionforreviewwasever  filedinthecase.    InMaultsby,ajuryconvicteddefendantofpettytheft(Pen.Code,484).Priorto   trial,defendantadmittedaprior strikefelonyconvictionforrobberyandadmittedprior   theftconvictions,includingtherobbery,forpurposesofPenalCodesection666.The   defendantappealedwithoutobtainingaCPC,assertinghisadmissiontothestrikeprior   wasobtainedabsentBoykin/Yurkoadvisements.Maultsby,invokingFultonandits   rationale,dismissedtheappealfornoCPC.     MeredithLeeFahn,counselforappellant.   " 3"   3l52-3  0    DueProcessIssues  3l55݌(#(# Ќ     Peoplev.Bailey ,S187020(H034382,SixthDist.,MontereyCo.)rev.granted  12/01/2010,pub.opin4< Z `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/H034382.PDF66`O6  7 7  (mod.opin.)4=  `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H034382M.PDF67`O7  7  8    Uponfindingthattheprosecutionintroducedinsufficientevidencetosupport  defendantsconvictionforescapingfromastateprison,couldtheCourtofAppealreduce  theconvictiontoattemptedescape,notwithstandingthetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructthe  juryonthatoffense,orwoulddoingsoviolatedefendant'srightstodueprocessandajury  trial?     `      Findingtheevidencewasinsufficienttoshowescapefromprison(Pen.Code,  4530),thecourtofappealobservedthattherewas ampleevidenceofattempttoescape.  However,thecourtofappealreversedtheconvictionoutright,decliningtoreducethe   convictiontoattempt,becauseattempttoescapeisnotanecessarilyincludedoffenseof ! escapeandthecourtdidnotinstructonattempt.Todootherwise,itheld,wouldviolate " dueprocess.Initsmodifiedopinion,thecourtacknowledgedPeoplev.Rojas(1961)55 # Cal.2d252,whichtheCaliforniaSupremeCourthadcitedinPeoplev.Rizo(2000)22 $  Cal.4th681,685,forthepropositionthat[w]hereadefendanthastherequisitecriminal %!! intentbutelementsofthesubstantivecrime[are]lackingduetocircumstances &"" unknowntohim,hecanonlybeconvictedofattemptandnotthesubstantivecrime '## itself.However,thecourtdistinguishedRojas,statingthecasedidnotfittheRojas ($$ scenario,andthat,inanyevent,therewasconflictingevidencewhetherdefendanthad )%% specificintenttoescapeandtheprosecutionmadeadeliberatedecisiontonotprosecute *&& defendantforattemptedescape. +'' Ї  JonathanBerger,counselforappellant.  " 3"   3A2-3  0    Restitution  3A1A݌(#(# Ќ    Peoplev.Stanley ,S185961(C063661,ThirdDist.,YoloCo.),rev.granted  11/10/2010,pub.opin.4; `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/C063661.PDF6YB`OmB  7 B     Didthetrialcourterrinawardingthevictimrestitutionforthecostsofrepairing   herdamagedtruck,whentheestimatedcostoftherepairswasoverthreetimesthe   purchasepriceshepaid18monthsearlier?       `      Stanleyheldthatacourtmayawardthevictimthecostofrepairingthevehicle,   evenifthatamountexceedsthereplacementvalueofthevehicle,disagreeingwithPeople   v.Yanez(1995)38Cal.App.4th1622.Yanezheldthatrestitutionwasnotdesignedto   leadtorecoveryofdamagesaboveandbeyondthosewhichwouldberecoverableunder  civillaw.Thislimitsarestitutionawardfordamagedbutreparablepropertytothelesser  ofreplacementcostandfeasiblerepaircost.Stanleyrejectedapplicationofciviltort  principlestolimitatrialcourtsdiscretiontosetrestitution,followingthereasoningofIn  reDinaV.(2007)151Cal.App.4th486,whichheldthatProposition8givesthetrialcourt  achoicebetweenmarketvalueandfeasiblerepaircost.    RobertNavarro,counselforappellant.  " 3"   3H2-3  0    CruelandUnusualPunishment  3HH݌(#(# Ќ     InreColey ,S185303(B224400,SecondDist.,LosAngelesCo.),rev.granted  11/10/2010,pub.opin.4> `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/B224400.PDF67J`OKJ  7 ,!yJ    Doesdefendantssentenceof25yearstolifeunderthethreestrikeslawfor   failingtoupdatehissexoffenderregistrationwithinfivedaysofhisbirthdayconstitute ! cruelandunusualpunishment? "   CaliforniaSupremeCourthadorderedtheSecondDistricttoconsiderwhether,in $  lightoftheholdinginPeoplev.Carmony(2005)127Cal.App.4th1066,thedefendants %!! sentenceviolatedtheEighthAmendment.DisagreeingwithCarmony,Coleyfoundno &"" EighthAmendmentviolation. h      p      x   '## ̀0  NancyTetreault,counselforpetitioner.)%%(#(#  +'' " 3"   3N2-3  0    DefensesMedicalMarijuana  3NN݌(#(# Ќ     Peoplev.Dowl ,S182621(F057384,FifthDist.,KernCo.)rev.granted  07/21/2010,pub.opin.4@ `O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/F057384.PDF6O`O P  7 ;P    WhetherthePeople,whenconfrontedwithamedicalmarijuanadefense,must   callanexpertwithexperiencedistinguishinglawful,medicalpossessionfromunlawful   possessiontoestablishthatdefendantpossessedmarijuanaforsale?     Defendant,whohadavalidProposition115identificationcardatthetimeofhis    arrest,waschargedwithpossessionforsaleofmarijuanaandtransportationofthesame.   Attrial,hetestifiedinhisownbehalfandpresentedmedicalrecordstoshowhesustained   ashoulderinjuryfromahitandruncaraccidentinMay2007.Apoliceofficer,qualified   asanexpertinunlawfulsalesofmarijuana,butnotasamedicalmarijuanaexpert,opined   thatthemarijuanawaspossessedforsaleandthathisopinionwasunaffectedby  defendantspossessionofamedicalmarijuanaidentificationcard.    Defendantappealed,arguingthattherewasinsufficientevidencetosupporthis  convictionofeitherpossessionofmarijuanaforsaleortransportationofmarijuana,  relyingonPeoplev.Chakos(2007)158Cal.App.4th357.Chakosreversedamarijuana  salesconvictionforinsufficientevidence,rulingthattherecordhadlacked substantial  evidencethatthearrestingofficerhadanyexpertiseindifferentiatingcitizenswho  possessmarijuanalawfullyfortheirownconsumption,asdistinctfrompossessing  unlawfullywithintenttosell.    DowldeclinedtofollowChakos,holdingthattheofficerwasnotrequiredto  additionallyqualifyasamedicalmarijuanaexpertinordertorenderavalidopinionthat  themarijuanaindefendantspossessionwaspossessedforsales,althoughthedefendant  hadpresentedevidenceofacompassionateusedefense.     MichelleMay,counselforappellant.