CA Pub. Decisions

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Under Penal Code Sec. 2900.5(f), a defendant is entitled to credit time spent in a residential drug treatment facility as a condition for probation, pursuant to Proposition 36, against a subsequent prison term following probation revocation.

Nothing in the laws governing dependency proceedings precludes the court from returning a child to the parents' home and ordering family maintenance services at the 12 month or 18-month permanency review hearings.

Nothing in the laws governing dependency proceedings precludes the court from returning a child to the parents' home and ordering family maintenance services at the 12 month or 18 month permanency review hearings.

Evidence was sufficient to establish abuse victim was a dependent adult within the meaning of Penal Code Sec. 368 where, though victim did not actually depend on defendant for day to day activities, facts that she had to wear a leg brace and use a cane or walker for walking and had impaired mental abilities, including memory and speech problems, established she had physical or mental limitations that "restrict" her ability to carry out normal activities or protect her rights.

A statement of reasonable grounds for appeal required by Rule of Court 8.304(b), formerly Rule 30(b), must be filed within 60 days of the rendition of judgment even though Judicial Council in amending rule did not incorporate into the revised rule the express 60 day deadline of former Rule 31(d). Court of appeal may grant a motion for the "constructive filing" in superior court of a late statement of reasonable grounds for appeal, provided the defendant makes a showing of good cause for that relief. Although defendant qualified for constructive filing because he reasonably relied on his trial attorney to perfect his appeal in the proper manner and had no reason to know that the issue of mental competence, identified by his trial attorney in the notice of appeal, was not properly perfected for review on appeal, he was nevertheless not entitled to file a belated statement of reasonable grounds for appeal in the trial court where he sought to identify a clearly frivolous appellate issue the trial court's "denying his request for a hearing to determine whether he was competent to stand trial." Where court cited defendant's numerous prior criminal convictions as a basis for imposing the upper term sentence and stated this factor alone justified the upper term, its consideration of other aggravating factors that were not submitted to the jury was harmless.

A statement of reasonable grounds for appeal required by Rule of Court 8.304(b), formerly Rule 30(b), must be filed within 60 days of the rendition of judgment even though Judicial Council in amending rule did not incorporate into the revised rule the express 60 day deadline of former Rule 31(d). Court of appeal may grant a motion for the "constructive filing" in superior court of a late statement of reasonable grounds for appeal, provided the defendant makes a showing of good cause for that relief. Although defendant qualified for constructive filing because he reasonably relied on his trial attorney to perfect his appeal in the proper manner and had no reason to know that the issue of mental competence, identified by his trial attorney in the notice of appeal, was not properly perfected for review on appeal, he was nevertheless not entitled to file a belated statement of reasonable grounds for appeal in the trial court where he sought to identify a clearly frivolous appellate issue the trial court's "denying his request for a hearing to determine whether he was competent to stand trial." Where court cited defendant's numerous prior criminal convictions as a basis for imposing the upper term sentence and stated this factor alone justified the upper term, its consideration of other aggravating factors that were not submitted to the jury was harmless.

A modification decision.

At trial where defendant was found to be a sexually violent predator and recommitted to a secured facility under the Sexually Violent Predators Act, trial court abused its discretion in granting media's request to televise or videotape the proceedings where court failed to give adequate consideration to the factors listed in California Rule of Court 1.150 which permits media coverage only where the court reasonably exercises its discretion in accordance with that provision and particularly failed to weigh the unusual nature of a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA. Error was harmless where defendant could not show that media's intrusion affected the jury's determination that he satisfied the criteria for recommitment. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's request to compel the prosecutor to disclose the current contact information for two prosecution witnesses who also were victims in the underlying crimes where, although he was entitled to the information under the Civil Discovery Act, he failed to make a timely demand.

At trial where defendant was found to be a sexually violent predator and recommitted to a secured facility under the Sexually Violent Predators Act, trial court abused its discretion in granting media's request to televise or videotape the proceedings where court failed to give adequate consideration to the factors listed in California Rule of Court 1.150 which permits media coverage only where the court reasonably exercises its discretion in accordance with that provision and particularly failed to weigh the unusual nature of a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA. Error was harmless where defendant could not show that media's intrusion affected the jury's determination that he satisfied the criteria for recommitment. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's request to compel the prosecutor to disclose the current contact information for two prosecution witnesses who also were victims in the underlying crimes where, although he was entitled to the information under the Civil Discovery Act, he failed to make a timely demand.

Where defendant was charged with 10 separate violations of Penal Code Sec. 12020(a)(2), proscribing possession of large capacity magazines, trial court's order merging those charges into one count, in direct contradiction to the statutory authority of Sec. 12001(l), was in excess of jurisdiction. Search warrant was invalid where based on data supplied by defendant under compulsion of National Firearms Act, which explicitly renders such data inadmissible, subject to limited exceptions, in "any criminal proceeding," not just at trial. State agents did not execute search warrant in "objective good faith" where, unbeknownst to issuing magistrate, information in underlying affidavit was disclosed to the state by federal inspector in violation of confidentiality required by federal statute.

Where corporation's distributions to shareholders in connection with a single transaction were less than 20 percent of the corporation's gross assets, those distributions did not constitute a "partial liquidation" of the corporation, so general rule that distributions by a corporation to a shareholder that is a trust are allocated as trust income applies. Parent corporation's advice to shareholders that a subsidiary was selling certain stock and intended to divest itself of specified tangible property, and make distributions to its shareholders, including parent corporation, did not constitute an indication by parent corporation that it was partially liquidating, so resulting distributions to trust were properly allocated as income rather than as principal under the "entity" exception to the general rule. Rule that distributions to trust in exchange for stock constitute principal does not apply where distributions did not alter or reduce the trust's share ownership or its percentage ownership of corporation.

Substantial evidence supported caretaker's conviction of theft by larceny where victim was a 68 year old man suffering from cognitive impairment due to Parkinson's disease and the medication taken to treat the disease, defendant took $17,000 of victim's money to buy herself a new sport utility vehicle, defendant admitted taking money but claimed she did so with victim's consent, and testimony of victim and of his doctor showed that he was not capable of consenting to the transfer of money. Penal Code Sec. 1127g, which provides that a witness with a cognitive impairment is not deemed any more or less credible than any other witness, does not unconstitutionally lower the prosecution's burden of proof.