August, 2000
browse other months

CRIMINAL
People v. Alvarez
S089554 (D031387)
Unpublished opinion. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. This case concerns whether the corpus delicti rule was abrogated by the truth-in-evidence provision of Proposition 8. (See Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(d).). 08/30/00
Read the Case Summary

CRIMINAL
People v. Martinez
S089400 (B132643)
Unpublished opinion. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in People v. Garcia, S081934, which concerns whether knowledge of the duty to register is an element of the crime of failure to register as a sex offender. 08/30/00
Read the Case Summary
Update: Review transferred to the Court of Appeal on 08/08/01.

CIVIL LITIGATION
Reed v. Pacificare of California
S089701 (B126456)
Unpublished opinion. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of dismissal of a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in McCall v. PacifiCare of California, S082236 which concerns whether state law claims against a health maintenance organization, arising out of a refusal to provide services under a Medicare-subsidized health plan, fall within the exclusive review provisions of the Medicare Act requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. 08/30/00
Read the Case Summary
Update: Review transferred to the Court of Appeal on 08/15/01.

CRIMINAL
People v. Acosta
S089120 (B132967; 80 Cal.App.4th 714.)
Petitions for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense. The court limited the issues to be reviewed to those addressed in the Court of Appeal opinion including (1) whether the one strike law (Pen. Code § 667.61), and the three strikes law (Pen. Code § 667, subds. (b)-(i)), operate together or exclusively of one another and (2) whether the same prior conviction finding can be used both to trigger application of a 25 year-to-life sentence under the one strike law and as a "strike" under the three strikes law and/or to enhance the defendant's sentence by five years under Penal Code § 667, subdivision (a). 08/23/00
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

CRIMINAL
People v. Graves
S089533 (C029964; 80 Cal.App.4th 1336.)
Petitions for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. The court limited review in Graves to issues similar to, and included within, the issues specified in Acosta. 08/23/00
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

CRIMINAL
People v. Taylor
S088909 (B128957; 80 Cal.App.4th 804.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. The court ordered briefing deferred pending disposition of the appeal in People v. Engelman, S086462. 08/23/00
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

EMPLOYMENT
Kennedy v. Friskies Petcare Company
S089780 (B122245)
Unpublished opinion. This petition presented three issues for review including whether an Appellate Court majority, in review, can disregard a judge's findings and hold a lawsuit as frivolous from the outset, where a judge has, after the close of discovery, explicitly found substantial and material disputed issues for trial in an employment discrimination case. 08/23/00
Read the Case Summary
Summary order issued.

CRIMINAL
People v. Storm
S088712 (D030950; 79 Cal.App.4th 1324.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense. This case includes the issue of whether, when there is a break in custody between a suspect's request for an attorney in response to a Miranda warning (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) and renewed questioning of the suspect by the police in a noncustodial setting which leads to an incriminating statement, the incriminating statement is admissible at trial only if the break in custody is not "pretextual." 08/16/00
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

CRIMINAL
Wells v. S.C.(People)
S088939 (B133725)
Unpublished opinion. This case presents three issues, including the issue of what is the applicable law of discovery on petition for habeas corpus based upon ineffective assistance of counsel in a case tried after Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, called into question the rule under Reber, but before this Court decided Hammon? 08/16/00
Read the Case Summary
Summary order issued.

CIVIL LITIGATION
Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo
S089226 (D030802; 80 Cal.App.4th 617.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents three issues for review: 1. Is reversal of the underlying conviction, on appeal or through post-conviction relief, a prerequisite to bringing a criminal defense malpractice action? 2. Does a standing conviction, whether the result of a trial or a guilty plea, collaterally estop (or otherwise prohibit on policy grounds), the plaintiff from asserting and proving his or her actual innocence? 3. Should a convicted person be allowed to prosecute a legal malpractice claim, the foundation of which continues to establish his guilt? 08/09/00
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion
Update: Decision issued on 07/02/01.

CRIMINAL
People v. Denser
S088995 (B136244)
Unpublished opinion. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order vacating the judgment in a criminal case. This case concerns whether a defendant in a criminal case, who prior to the entry of a guilty plea was advised by the trial court of the possibility of deportation as required by Penal Code § 1016.5, can later challenge the guilty plea on the basis of his counsel's alleged failure to investigate the actual immigration consequences of the plea. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Resendiz on Habeas Corpus, S078879. 08/09/00
Read the Case Summary
Update: Review transferred to the Court of Appeal on 07/25/01.

CRIMINAL
People v. Harper
S088651 (E025062)
Unpublished opinion. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a certificate of rehabilitation. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in People v. Ansell, S079744, which concerns whether application of newly adopted prohibitions on the issuance of certificates of rehabilitation to individuals whose crimes predate the amendments violates constitutional protections against ex post facto legislation. 08/09/00
Read the Case Summary
Update: Review dismissed on 11/14/01.

CRIMINAL
People v. McCoy
S088767 (B127097; 80 Cal.App.4th 57, mod. 80 Cal.App.4th 1225d.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal ordered modifications of the abstract but affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in People v. Smith, S088387, which concerns whether the People may, for the first time on appeal, raise the issue that, although the trial court imposed a restitution fine, it failed to impose a parole revocation restitution fine in the proper amount. 08/09/00
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion
Update: Review dismissed on 04/25/01.

CRIMINAL
People v. Otto
S088807 (A086761; 80 Cal.App.4th 75.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator. This case presents two issues for review: 1. To what extent does § 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code allow the nature of prior offenses to be proved by multi-level hearsay evidence? 2. Does the use of such hearsay, in order to prove a required element under the Sexually Violent Predators law, deny the defendant due process of law, including the right to confront witnesses against him? 08/09/00
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion
Update: Decision issued on 07/23/01.

CRIMINAL
People v. Mendoza
S089671 (F032945; 81 Cal.App.4th 179.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator. Court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in People v. Otto, S088807. The court limited review in Otto to the issues of 1) whether Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600, subdivision (a), permitting the details of predicate offenses to be proved by documentary evidence in Sexually Violent Predator proceedings, allows admission of multiple hearsay that does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule, and, if so, 2) whether the statutory provision violates the defendant's due process right to confrontation. 08/09/00
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion
Update: Review dismissed on 11/14/01.