Daniel J. Kremer

In People v. Felix, a jury convicted the defendant of carjacking, taking a vehicle without permission, receiving stolen property, and giving false information to a peace officer, and found he had personally used a firearm during the carjacking. The trial court imposed a nine-year sentence that included a four-year firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.5 instead of the ten-year enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b), ruling that the longer term would constitute cruel or unusual punishment given the defendant's age, lack of criminal history, and psychological profile. On appeal by the People, the Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions but held that the ten-year enhancement was mandatory and not cruel or unusual as applied, because the carjacking involved a gun pressed against the victim and the defendant's circumstances were not comparable to cases where reduced punishment was warranted; the court therefore reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The opinion focuses on statutory interpretation of firearm enhancements and application of the cruel or unusual punishment standard under the California Constitution.

criminal lawguns

The case involved a patient, Jeffrey Conte, who sued orthopedic surgeons for medical battery and malpractice after shoulder surgery for a fracture from a motocross injury. Conte claimed he consented only to open reduction internal fixation repair, but the surgeon performed arthroscopic evaluation, found less displacement than expected, and decided not to repair, leaving the fracture to heal without fixation. The trial court granted nonsuit on the battery claim after Conte's case-in-chief, and the jury found no negligence on the malpractice claim. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that there was no evidence of an express condition on consent that was violated and that the signed consent form broadly authorized the doctor to perform advisable procedures.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case Davis v. City of San Diego concerned whether the city could publicly release narrative reports prepared by its Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices about a fatal police shooting incident involving several officers. Plaintiffs, including the affected officers and their association, petitioned for a writ of mandate to block disclosure, contending the reports qualified as confidential personnel records under Penal Code sections 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8. The court granted the writ and later awarded attorney fees, ruling that the Board reports were statutorily confidential and could not be voluntarily released by the city except through formal discovery procedures. The core reasoning was that the reports fell within the statutory definition of personnel records maintained pursuant to section 832.5 and were therefore protected from public dissemination by section 832.7, with local charter provisions unable to override state confidentiality rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Mac David Cochran, who was convicted after a court trial of 27 counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, 10 counts of forcible lewd conduct with a child under 14, and one count of employing a minor to produce pornography for commercial purposes, based on evidence of him sexually abusing his young daughter and videotaping the acts which he posted online. Cochran appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of force or duress for the assault and lewd conduct counts, and insufficient evidence of commercial purpose for the pornography count. The Court of Appeal initially affirmed the sex offense convictions but reversed the pornography conviction for lack of commercial purpose evidence; however, after the California Supreme Court reversed that holding and found sufficient evidence of commercial purpose, the Court of Appeal affirmed the entire judgment.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego seeking to recover costs under the Polanco Redevelopment Act from the Salvation Army for remediating hazardous substances on property the Army owned in a redevelopment area. After the Army failed to respond to notices and submit a proposed remedial action plan within statutory deadlines, the Agency performed the cleanup work with regulatory approvals and pursued cost recovery following settlement of eminent domain claims. The trial court ruled for the Agency on its Polanco Act claim, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the Agency had satisfied Polanco Act requirements by providing proper notices, obtaining necessary approvals consistent with CERCLA standards and the national contingency plan, and that the Army was a responsible party that did not submit any remediation plan.

environmentpropertyprocedure

This case involved a juvenile dependency petition filed by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency regarding newborn S.O., based on prior incidents of domestic violence and sexual abuse by the presumed father Enrique against the child's older siblings, including repeated physical assaults on the mother in front of the children and sexual abuse of one daughter. The mother appealed the juvenile court's dispositional order declaring S.O. a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), while allowing her to retain custody, arguing that the petition failed to state a cause of action and lacked substantial evidence of current risk to the child. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional findings because the mother had not fully addressed protective issues, continued to show poor judgment regarding contact with Enrique, and had not demonstrated consistent ability to protect the children without court involvement. The court rejected claims of inconsistency between the jurisdictional finding and placement with the mother, noting that the situation did not involve improper removal and immediate return to parental custody.

family law