Whence Cometh Evil? Making Sense of Human Suffering and COVID-19

CHARLES E. BINKLEY

Surgeon and bioethicist Charles E. Binkley, MD, offers a perspective on how we might make sense of suffering, particularly in light of the present COVID-19 pandemic. Binkley suggests that through suffering, we are paradoxically able to find good, and in this instance, that good might be the practice of social reciprocity.

Read More

People v. Wilkes

Docket: A155624(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 26, 2020

Judge: Mark B. Simons

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Wilkes was convicted for the attempted murder of Christopher and related crimes. The court of appeal affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment to strike an enhancement for a prior one-year prison term for a grand theft conviction and award presentence conduct credits. The court upheld other enhancements and rejected Wilkes’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that he intended to kill Christopher and that the attempted murder was premeditated and deliberate. There was evidence that Wilkes purposefully fired a gun into the front passenger window of a car, knowing Christopher was in the driver’s seat, and that he fired a subsequent shot at Christopher after Christopher exited the car. The court also rejected Wilkes’s equal protection challenge to a statutory provision rendering youth offenders sentenced pursuant to the Three Strikes Law (Pen. Code 667(b)–(j), 1170.12), such as Wilkes, ineligible for youth offender parole hearings. (section 3051(h).)

People v. Medeiros

Docket: A155648(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 26, 2020

Judge: Margulies

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Medeiros was convicted of embezzlement and grand theft of property valued in excess of $1.3 million. The court sentenced Medeiros to a seven-year prison term: the middle term of two years for grand theft, three years for Penal Code section 12022.6(a)(3) amount of loss enhancement, and two years for the section 186.11(a)(2) aggravated white-collar enhancement. It stayed his two-year, middle-term sentence for embezzlement and for all enhancements attached to that charge. The court of appeal affirmed in part, rejecting Medeiros’s claim that it should strike a Penal Code former section 12022.6 enhancement because the statute was repealed before he was sentenced. Vacating and remanding in part, the court agreed that either his conviction for embezzlement or his grand theft conviction should be stricken as they are two statements of the same offense under Penal Code section 954. The court also agreed that the true finding on his section 186.11 enhancement should be stricken because he did not commit two related felonies. The judgment should be amended to correct the total amount of the court security fee and criminal conviction assessment. The court declined to remand for a further hearing to determine the amount of and his ability to pay victim restitution.

People v. Torres

Docket: B296179(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 26, 2020

Judge: Moor

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder (counts 11 and 12) under a felony murder theory of liability, the jury found true the special circumstance that the murders were committed during the commission of a robbery and found true multiple murder special circumstance allegations. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 and newly enacted Senate Bill No. 1437. The court disagreed with defendant's broad assertion that a trial court may not summarily deny a petition on the basis of the record of conviction prior to appointment of counsel and briefing, but nevertheless reversed the trial court's order. In this case, the trial court relied exclusively on the jury's 2001 special circumstances findings, which findings alone are not sufficient to preclude relief in the wake of People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522. The court remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether defendant has made a prima facie showing that he falls within the provisions of section 1170.95.