Latest 5 Cases: California Disability Services Assn. v. Bargmann (Civil Procedure), California v. Brown (Constitutional Law), California v. Ware ...

Dear House Judiciary Committee: In Questioning William Barr, Employ the Ethics Complaint That 27 Distinguished DC Lawyers Filed Wednesday

FREDERICK BARON, DENNIS AFTERGUT, AUSTIN SARAT

Frederick Baron, former associate deputy attorney general and director of the Executive Office for National Security in the Department of Justice, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, and Austin Sarat, Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College, call upon the House Judiciary Committee to carefully read the ethics complaint by 27 distinguished DC lawyers against William Barr before questioning him today, July 28, 2020.

Read More

California Disability Services Assn. v. Bargmann

Docket: C088493(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 31, 2020

Judge: Ronald B. Robie

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

Petitioners California Disability Services Association; Horrigan Cole Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Cole Vocational Services; Unlimited Quest, Inc.; Loyd’s Liberty Homes, Inc.; and First Step Independent Living Program, Inc. petitioned for mandamus relief and damages, and sought a declaration against the California Department of Developmental Services (Department) and its director, Nancy Bargmann (collectively respondents). Petitioners challenged the Department’s denial of their requests for a rate adjustment due to the increase of the minimum wage, which, in turn, impacted the salaries of their exempt program directors, who had to be paid twice the minimum wage. The trial court denied petitioners’ petition and complaint for declaratory relief finding providers’ classification of the program directors as exempt employees was not mandated by law, thus “there is no ministerial duty imposed on the Department to grant a wage increase request in order to accommodate continued entitlement to the exemption.” Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed.

California v. Brown

Docket: D075476(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 31, 2020

Judge: Dato

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jonas Brown was tried for his involvement in three gang-related shootings. Tremayne Jones, a member of the Skyline gang and a confidential informant, died in the third incident. Among other counts, Brown was convicted by jury of the first-degree murder of Jones. On appeal, Brown claimed one trial error and three sentencing errors: (1) the court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; (2) his conduct and actual custody credits were miscalculated; (3) two gang enhancements added to his sentence were unauthorized; and (4) the court was unaware of its discretion regarding a firearm enhancement. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with Jones that his actual custody credits and gang enhancements should be corrected, but otherwise the Court affirmed the judgment.

California v. Ware

Docket: D072515(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 31, 2020

Judge: Terry B. O'Rourke

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellants Dionte Simpson, Victor Ware, and Nicholas Hoskins were members of 5/9 Brim (Brim), a criminal street gang in San Diego that was a set of the Bloods gang. The Neighborhood Crips (NC) and West Coast Crips (WCC), (together, the Crips), other criminal street gangs, were the main rivals of the Brims. A jury found appellants guilty of multiple crimes related to their gang involvement. Ware admitted a prison prior allegation. The court sentenced appellants to prison as follows: (1) Ware, 27 years plus 40 years to life; (2) Simpson, 36 years plus 25 years to life; and (3) Hoskins, 25 years to life. Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions for conspiracy to commit murder (count 1) and criminal street gang conspiracy (counts 6, 7, 9). They also challenged various alleged errors at trial to attack their respective convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal reversed Ware's and Hoskins's gang conspiracy convictions, but rejected appellants' remaining arguments regarding their convictions. The Court agreed that Simpson's and Ware's sentences had to be vacated; the matter was remanded for resentencing.

People v. Herrera

Docket: H046631(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 31, 2020

Judge: Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2018, Herrera was convicted of possession of marijuana in jail (Pen. Code 4573.6(a)). The jury found true allegations that he had suffered a prior strike conviction and that he had served three prior prison terms. The court sentenced him to eight years in prison, which included consecutive one-year terms for two of the three prison priors. On appeal, Herrera argued that his conviction must be reversed because the possession of cannabis in jail is no longer a crime after the passage of Proposition 64 in 2016 and that the prior prison term enhancements must be stricken because the enhancements no longer apply to him based on legislation that went into effect after he was sentenced (Pen. Code 667.5(b).) The court of appeal reversed in part. Proposition 64 did not decriminalize the possession of cannabis in a penal institution but the prior prison term enhancements no longer apply to Herrera. Pen. Code 667.5(b)., effective January 2020, applies retroactively to Herrera's prior prison terms for robbery, possession of a weapon in a penal institution, and carrying a concealed dirk or dagger, none of which is a sexually violent offense.

In re S.P.

Docket: B302804(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 31, 2020

Judge: Laurence D. Rubin

Areas of Law: Family Law

Father appealed from the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to his child, challenging the denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. Father sought to vacate all relevant jurisdiction and disposition findings for which he received no notice. The Court of Appeal held that DCFS's efforts to locate and notice father were deficient where DCFS conducted no additional due diligence between January 14th (when the juvenile court found diligence inadequate) and February 13th (where the juvenile court found it sufficient), and DCFS never asked the parental relatives for father's whereabouts. However, the court applied the Watson standard and held that it is not reasonably probable that absent the notice error, father would have been granted reunification services or his parental rights would not have been terminated. Therefore, the error was harmless.