X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
LOS ANGELES — The state’s judges can breathe easier. The California Supreme Court seemed confident Thursday that the state’s sentencing guidelines pass constitutional muster under U.S. Supreme Court rulings that struck down Washington state’s guidelines last year and declared their federal counterparts only advisory earlier this year. “It would seem to me the federal system is different,” Chief Justice Ronald George said during oral arguments in a case that has been widely, and nervously, anticipated by the state’s legal community. Also on Thursday, the high court seemed wary of treating amusement park rides as common carriers for the purpose of holding their operators to a higher standard of care. Nearly every amusement park in the state — from Anaheim’s Disneyland to Gilroy’s Bonfante Gardens — opposes the move to classify rides as common carriers. The court seemed ready to punt to the state Legislature, with at least four indicating that the case shouldn’t be resolved judicially. The sentencing case was touched off by last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531, which held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial made it unconstitutional for judges to increase sentences based on factors not heard by jurors. Three months ago, the court extended that reasoning to the federal system in U.S. v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, calling the guidelines advisory, not mandatory. Pacifica lawyer Eileen Kotler represented Kevin Black, a Tulare County man who had been sentenced to 16 years for one count of continuous sexual conduct and 15 years to life for two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct on children. In doing so, the trial court judge ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for a total term of 46 years to life. The judge imposed the upper term for each because of the “nature, seriousness and circumstances” of the crimes and because there were three underage victims. On Thursday, Kotler argued that under Blakely and Booker those kinds of enhanced sentences can no longer stand. Blakely, she said, made it clear that other than a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty beyond a prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury. Chief Justice George, however, advised Kotler to look closer at Booker, saying it would illustrate the distinctions between the federal and California sentencing schemes. In that case, he noted, the drug defendant got 360 months — rather than the prescribed range of 210 to 262 months — because the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that he possessed a huge amount of cocaine. In California, he said, “we have enhancements that go to a jury for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Justice Marvin Baxter noted that there are some aggravating factors that aren’t even admissible at trial. “If a judge felt, or a DA felt, the upper term was appropriate,” he asked, “would the court have to have a separate penalty phase?” Justice Carlos Moreno suggested that California judges have more discretion than federal judges in looking at criminal history in enhancing a sentence. Justice Joyce Kennard, on the other hand, questioned Los Angeles-based Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Daniels whether there really was a difference between the sentencing laws of Washington and California. Under both, she said, “the trial court cannot impose an aggravated term unless it finds an aggravated factor.” She also asked Daniels whether there would be a “horrendous effect” on the state’s trial courts if the court ruled against him. The case is People v. Black, S126182. In the amusement park case, the justices — minus George and Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who recused themselves — appeared uncomfortable deciding whether theme park rides should be considered common carriers subject to greater standards of care. Justice Kennard, sitting as acting chief justice, summed up the court’s anxiety by saying the issue was “extremely difficult” and “ultimately a decision for the Legislature to make.” “This difficult issue has cases on either side that would support it,” she said. Justices Baxter and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar — as well as Second District Court of Appeal Justice Miriam Vogel sitting by assignment — echoed the legislative theme. The Walt Disney Co. was sued by the survivors of Spanish tourist Cristina Moreno, who died from a brain injury after riding Disneyland’s Indiana Jones attraction in June 2000. Beverly Hills attorney Barry Novack argued that common carrier liability, applicable to street cars, buses and trains, should also be required for amusement park rides. Disney’s lawyers and several amici curiae said only reasonable care should apply. Richard Derevan, a partner at Irvine’s Snell & Wilmer who represented Disney, argued that applying the higher standard would make it almost impossible to retain thrill rides. He also maintained that common carriers transport people from one place to another, while amusement rides stay in one place. “If transportation is incidental to the entertainment, that’s the difference,” Derevan said. Vogel and Justice Ming Chin wondered why theme park visitors weren’t entitled to safety, even on a thrill ride. Derevan said they are, but only to a reasonable standard of care. A thrill ride by its nature, he argued, is supposed to provide the illusion of danger. “A ride is not supposed to be a smooth ride from Point A to Point B,” he said. “We don’t want to put our visitors in danger. They’d never come back.” The case is Gomez v. Superior Court (The Walt Disney Co.), S118489. Rulings in both cases are expected within 90 days.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.