Rodney Davis

In People v. Ugalino, a jury convicted defendant Del Jay Ugalino of multiple offenses arising from an August 2005 incident in which he and an accomplice entered an apartment under the pretense of buying marijuana from resident Joshua Johnson, then brandished guns and attempted to steal the drugs, leading to charges including first-degree residential burglary, two counts of attempted robbery (of Johnson and roommate Jessie Rider), drug possession for sale, and felon in possession of ammunition. The trial court sentenced Ugalino to 14 years and six months in prison. On appeal, the court reversed only the attempted robbery conviction as to Rider, holding that insufficient evidence showed Rider had any ownership, possession, access, or protective obligation regarding Johnson's marijuana, as the two were merely roommates with no special relationship and Johnson was present to safeguard his own property. The court otherwise affirmed the convictions and remanded for resentencing.

criminal law

In People v. Robertson, the defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale with firearm and prior conviction enhancements and was sentenced to 13 years in prison, including a $1,200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4 with an attached 10 percent administrative fee. On appeal, the defendant challenged the administrative fee as unauthorized, relying on the earlier decision in People v. Eddards. The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge, holding that section 1202.4, subdivision (l) expressly permits the 10 percent fee on the restitution fine ordered under that statute, and distinguished Eddards because it involved a different statute (section 1203.1) limiting fees to restitution paid directly to victims rather than the Restitution Fund. The court affirmed the fee and directed the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect presentence custody credits and a court security fee.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Chico Romero Watts, who was convicted in separate trials of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, as well as multiple offenses including battery, infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, assault, false imprisonment, and related enhancements, with recidivist allegations sustained. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of his request to represent himself under Faretta v. California, along with other issues such as physical restraints and jury instructions. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences in full, directing only a correction to the abstract of judgment. It held that the trial court properly denied self-representation because the defendant's prior conduct in court demonstrated an inability to follow procedural rules and legal protocol, rendering him unable to exercise the right competently.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Randy Dean Pierce, convicted by a jury of second-degree murder after he ran over his friend with a truck and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial court's response to an objection during closing arguments and the prosecutor's rebuttal remarks misled the jury about the meaning of "an abiding conviction that the charge is true" in the standard reasonable doubt instruction (CALCRIM No. 220), specifically by downplaying any requirement of permanence or lasting belief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding there was no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled because the trial court properly directed counsel to restate the law from the jury instructions, those instructions adequately stated the prosecution's burden without need for further elaboration on the term "abiding," and the prosecutor's comments did not misstate the law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a property owner's claim of inverse condemnation against the County of Butte, alleging that the County's implementation of a master storm drainage plan and related activities—such as accepting drainage from nearby subdivisions into Keefer Slough, building a bridge, and sponsoring a creek bed restoration project—increased flooding on his almond orchard property. Following a bench trial, the trial court found no inverse condemnation liability, determining that the County's actions satisfied the rule of reasonable conduct applicable to public flood control efforts. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court had properly resolved all material issues under the reasonableness standard and that the plaintiff had not established a compensable taking.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved podiatrist Pete G. Thomas, who sought a writ of mandate to compel the director of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to reconsider his 2007 application for reenrollment as a Medi-Cal provider without regard to a 1999 audit determination that he owed $790,000 in overpayments. The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that even if the 2002 Sacramento County judgment entered under Welfare and Institutions Code section 14172 was unenforceable due to the DHCS's failure to file a certificate in Orange County, the underlying 1999 overpayment determination remained a valid outstanding debt that the DHCS could properly consider under its regulations and the parties' 2003 settlement agreement when evaluating the reenrollment application. The court further noted that the DHCS's discretionary decision on the application could not be compelled by mandate absent an impermissible factor, which was not shown here.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory