Latest 6 Cases: In re McDowell (Civil Rights), California v. Cota (Constitutional Law), People v. Botello (Criminal Law)

A Tale of Two Victims Trying to Stay Above Water While Pursuing Justice: Corey Feldman and Patty Fortney (And Her Sisters)

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, professor at the University of Pennsylvania and CEO of CHILD USA, describes two stories that show the persistent barriers to justice for child sex abuse victims, despite significant progress recently. First, Hamilton relates the story of Corey Feldman, who will finally get to tell his story of abuse in the premiere of My Truth: The Rape of Two Coreys on March 9, 2020, which will air at 11pm EST in a one-time, online showing globally. Second, Hamilton describes how Patty Fortney and her sisters are pursuing justice against the diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Read More

Searching for Even Slim Reeds of Optimism That This is Not the End of the Rule of Law in America

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan offers two possible reasons for cautious optimism that the rule of law survives under President Trump: (1) Trump continues to lie, and (2) even the most potentially unreliable Democrats have not (yet?) decided to stop opposing him.

Read More

In re McDowell

Docket: A157020(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 26, 2020

Judge: Burns

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

McDowell and Hutchison planned and executed a burglary and an attempted armed robbery of a drug dealer. Hutchison shot and killed the drug dealer. Although he was not the actual killer, McDowell was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after a jury convicted him of, among other things, first-degree murder (Pen. Code 187(a)) and found true robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstances (190.2(a)(17)(A), (G)). After the California Supreme Court’s Banks (2015) and Clark (2016) decision, McDowell sought habeas corpus relief, challenging the special circumstance findings. The court of appeal denied relief, holding that the “major participant” and “reckless indifference to human life” findings are adequately supported. McDowell’s decision to arm himself with a palm knife should be viewed in combination with the particularly risky crime that he planned and led—a home invasion robbery of a methamphetamine dealer. McDowell’s proximity to the crime and opportunity to restrain Hutchison also increased his culpability.

California v. Cota

Docket: D074935(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 26, 2020

Judge: Cynthia Aaron

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Fernando Cota pled guilty to felony carrying a concealed dirk or dagger in exchange for three years of probation and the possibility that the charge might be reduced to a misdemeanor at the end of one year. The trial court imposed various probation conditions that Cota objected to in the trial court and challenged on appeal. Based on the California Supreme Court's recent decision in In re Ricardo P., 7 Cal.5th 1113 (2019), the Court of Appeal concluded that an electronics search condition that the court imposed was unreasonable, but remanded for further consideration of a potentially appropriate electronics search condition. The Court upheld the remaining challenged conditions. Cota also challenged the trial court's imposition of various fees and a restitution fine, arguing that due process required a finding of ability to pay before such charges may be imposed. He requested a remand to the trial court for a hearing to consider his ability to pay the fines and fees assessed at sentencing. To this, the Court of Appeal concluded due process did not bar the imposition of the assessments and fine that Cota challenged and that remand on this issue was therefore not required. In all other respects, judgment was affirmed.

People v. Botello

Docket: F076907(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 26, 2020

Judge: Snauffer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's conviction for murdering two juveniles and held that the trial court's error in admitting into evidence defendant's rap song video glorifying gang violence was harmless. However, the court vacated defendant's life sentence because it was unable to conclude that the trial court's sentence complied with the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The court held that Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (b)(4), does not moot defendant's abuse of discretion claim. The trial court then examined and illuminated the transient immaturity versus irreparable corruption legal standard applicable to juvenile life without parole sentencing. The court concluded that, to faithfully apply this deeply rooted in the Eighth Amendment sentencing standard, a trial court must affirmatively and expressly find the circumstances that justify imposing a life without parole sentence upon a juvenile offender. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing.

Munoz v. Superior Court of Alameda County

Docket: A157445(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 26, 2020

Judge: Henry E. Needham, Jr.

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Hayward Police Department investigated the East Las Palmas street gang, of which Munoz and Villegas were members. They wiretapped Villegas's phone. While Munoz was in custody, he referred to killing Bagshaw during a phonecall with Villegas. The two texted about the plan and spoke later that day. Munoz indicated where Bagshaw would be (Fog Line) and what he would be wearing, stating, “R.I.P. The police had Bagshaw notified of the threat, went to Fog Line, and stationed themselves in highly visible positions. In a call, Munoz asked Villegas whether he was ready to go. Villegas answered affirmatively. Several texts followed, many concerning the police presence. No shooting occurred. An officer saw a car associated with Villegas drive by. Munoz was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. He argued that the corpus delicti rule prohibited consideration of a defendant’s own statements absent the presentation of independent evidence regarding the elements of the crime. The court of appeal declined to grant relief. The statements at issue were not subject to the rule; the recorded conversations and the statements made during those conversations constituted part of the criminal agreement central to the charge of conspiracy. “If the primary purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to ensure that a crime was actually committed, what better proof could there be of a criminal conspiracy than the words of the alleged conspirators actually constituting the agreement itself?”

King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern

Docket: F077656(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 26, 2020

Judge: Donald R. Franson, Jr.

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the Board's approval of an ordinance to streamline the permitting process for new oil and gas wells and certification of an environmental report (EIR) as compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The trial court found that the EIR inadequately analyzed the project's environmental impacts to rangeland and from a road paving mitigation measure, and rejected the other CEQA claims. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal addressed CEQA violations involving water, agricultural land, and noise. In regard to water supplies, the court held that the mitigation measures for the project's significant impacts to water supplies inappropriately deferred formulation of the measures or delayed the actual implementation of the measures. Furthermore, the EIR's disclosures about the mitigation measures were inadequate and thus the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations did not render harmless these failures to comply with CEQA. The court also held that the project's conversion of agricultural land would be mitigated to a less than significant level is not supported by substantial evidence. Finally, in regard to the project's noise impacts, the court held that the EIR did not include an analysis, supported by substantial evidence, explaining why the magnitude of an increase in ambient noise need not be addressed to determine the significance of the project's noise impact.

Wilkin v. Nelson

Docket: B294530(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 26, 2020

Judge: Steven Z. Perren

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

After the probate court found that clear and convincing evidence supported equitable reformation of the decedent's will to provide for testamentary control and disposition of her separate property only, the probate court denied requests by the decedent's son, under Family Code section 1101, for a community property award against the decedent's husband and ordered the son to reimburse the husband for attorney fees incurred to expunge the lis pendens on one of the husband's properties. The Court of Appeal dismissed the son's appeal from the attorney fees award, holding that the order granting those fees was nonappealable. The court affirmed in all other respects, holding that substantial evidence supported the probate court's findings of the decedent's intent and the mistake in drafting the pour-over will; the probate court did not abuse its discretion in reforming the pour-over will; the son lacked standing to pursue his section 1101 claims because he is not the executor/personal representative named in the pour-over will and he has waived any challenge to the probate court's ruling on standing; and, in any event, substantial evidence supported the probate court's finding that the withdrawal of one-half of the monies on deposit in the joint accounts did not cause a detrimental impact.