Robert L. Martin

The case involved defendant Sabino Ramos, who was charged with multiple counts of robbery, assault with a firearm, and drug-related offenses after robbing eight victims at gunpoint over ten days in 1995 while using PCP and methamphetamine. Ramos pleaded guilty to the robberies and drug charges, admitted most enhancements, and received a court trial on his sanity plea before being found legally sane and sentenced to 22 years; on appeal, he challenged the calculation of his presentence conduct credits. The court awarded him 31 days of conduct credits based on 15% of his 213 days in custody under Penal Code section 2933.1, which caps credits at 15% for violent felonies involving firearm use. Ramos argued for 32 to 34 days by interpreting "15 percent" more flexibly to include figures up to just under 16%, but the court rejected this, holding that the statute requires a strict 15% limit and that the trial court's whole-number rounding was correct under principles of statutory construction. The decision affirmed the sentence after addressing ambiguities in credit calculations for violent offenders.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Diane Dunn-Gonzalez, who was charged in 1994 with two counts of fraudulent appropriation of over $400, including from an elder adult in her care, based on her handling of funds for client Maiy LaBarre. After the trial court denied a motion to dismiss due to pre-charging delay, a jury convicted her on both counts, leading to a sentence of three years in prison plus restitution. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions, holding that the multi-year delay was justified by severe staffing shortages in the district attorney's and sheriff's offices rather than negligence or bad faith, and that the defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated prejudice from the passage of time or unavailability of witnesses. The court also ordered the trial court to strike an unauthorized $225 fee for the presentence report.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Whitfield, the defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance for sale after police executing a search warrant at an apartment complex detained her, asked without Miranda warnings whether she had narcotics, and obtained cocaine base that she retrieved from her clothing and handed over; a subsequent search yielded marijuana. Following denial of her motion to suppress, she pleaded nolo contendere. The court held that the detention and arrest satisfied Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements based on observed exchanges consistent with narcotics transactions. Although the questioning constituted custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, the physical evidence was not subject to exclusion because federal constitutional law does not require suppression of non-testimonial fruits of a Miranda violation, and California law follows that rule.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Light, a jury convicted defendant Louis Light, Jr. of two counts of rape, genital penetration, sexual battery, second-degree burglary, and second-degree robbery after he lured a real estate agent to an empty house under false pretenses, assaulted her with a wooden dowel, sexually assaulted her, and stole her purse, resulting in a 52-year prison sentence that included enhancements for weapon use and great bodily injury. On appeal, Light argued that the trial court made instructional errors, particularly regarding the reasonable doubt instruction, and that evidence was insufficient to support the weapon enhancements. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the reasonable doubt instruction complied with prior precedent from People v. Freeman approving the revised CALJIC No. 2.90 language, and rejecting the remaining claims of error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a fragmented neighborhood shopping center in Taft, California, where Safeway, the anchor tenant, closed its supermarket before the end of its lease term, removed fixtures, and renewed the lease while keeping the space vacant. The plaintiff, Westside Center Associates (WCA), which owned the remaining portions of the center, sued Safeway for breach of an implied covenant to remain operational and for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, alleging Safeway aimed to diminish the property's value. Following pretrial proceedings on stipulated facts, the trial court granted judgment in favor of Safeway on all claims, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that the claims failed as a matter of law regarding the implied covenant and causation for interference.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In People v. Temple, the prosecution appealed a trial court order dismissing three drug-related charges against defendant Jed William Temple after granting in part his motion to suppress evidence. The charges stemmed from a 1993 traffic stop of a van where officers detected the odor of marijuana, searched the occupants including Temple without individualized suspicion beyond his presence in the vehicle, and recovered marijuana and methamphetamine from his pockets and duffel bag. The trial court held that probable cause existed to search the van but not Temple personally, relying on U.S. v. Soyland, and excluded related statements leading to dismissal of all counts. The appellate court examined the appeal's scope under Penal Code section 1238 and addressed whether the shared odor and circumstances provided sufficient basis for the personal search.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the allocation of appellate costs following a prior appeal in which State Farm successfully challenged a judgment against it in favor of Ramirez, with St. Paul also a party. The trial court had granted St. Paul's motion to tax costs and limited State Farm's recovery to Ramirez alone. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to apportion costs because the prior opinion explicitly awarded costs to State Farm without limitation, making the remittitur unambiguous and entitling recovery from both respondents under standard rules.

procedure

The case involved defendant Fredrick Debrigadier Johnson, who was convicted by jury of two counts of forcible rape and one count of attempted forcible oral copulation, with allegations of prior sex offense convictions including one from Arizona and two from California. After a bench trial on the priors, the trial court imposed a 36-year prison sentence that included 20 years of enhancements under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (b), based on the prior convictions. On appeal limited to sentencing issues, the defendant argued that the out-of-state prior could not support the enhancement because section 667.6 refers only to enumerated California offenses. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, reasoning that sections 667.6 and 668 must be read together to permit enhancement for foreign convictions treated equivalently to in-state ones, as a contrary construction would produce absurd results contrary to legislative intent and public policy.

criminal law

The case involved a plaintiff seeking court permission under Government Code section 946.6 to file a late tort claim against the State of California for the wrongful death of her father, who died in December 1992 while incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi; the claim alleged that prison medical personnel failed to diagnose and treat his lung cancer. The trial court denied the petition after a hearing, concluding that the application to the State Board of Control had been submitted after the one-year deadline and that neither the plaintiff nor her counsel had shown mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court reasoned that counsel, retained in January 1993, made only minimal efforts to obtain medical records through sporadic correspondence without demonstrating diligence, that the prison facility was not the proper entity for service, and that arguments about needing records for a good-faith filing did not excuse noncompliance with the six-month claim deadline or one-year late-claim application period under sections 911.2 and 911.4.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Herbert Gray, a captain in the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department, who was dismissed for making public statements in local newspapers criticizing the newly elected sheriff’s personnel decisions and management style. Gray appealed the dismissal to the Board of Supervisors, which upheld it after an administrative hearing; he then petitioned for a writ of mandate, which the trial court granted on First Amendment grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that although the statements touched on matters of public concern, they substantially disrupted the department’s operations and efficiency. Applying the balancing test for public employee speech, the court concluded that the sheriff’s interest in maintaining discipline and order outweighed Gray’s speech interest, so the statements were not protected and dismissal was justified.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case involved an investor who filed multiple successive complaints in state and federal courts and arbitration against brokerage firm PaineWebber alleging breach of contract, fiduciary duty violations, fraud, and securities law claims arising from the same underlying facts; prior actions had been dismissed. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, declared the plaintiff a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, and imposed sanctions. On appeal, the court held that the sanctions order was defective because it failed to specify the conduct justifying sanctions as required by section 128.5, subdivision (c), and that the vexatious litigant determination required a more detailed hearing and findings; accordingly, it reversed those portions of the order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the statutory requirements while affirming the dismissal on res judicata grounds.

procedure

The case involved California State Personnel Board’s appeal from a superior court judgment granting a writ of administrative mandamus to reverse the Board’s refusal to accept the withdrawal of David Larson’s appeal from his termination by the Department of Developmental Services for alleged sexual molestation of clients. Larson and DDS had reached a settlement under which DDS would withdraw the termination, Larson would withdraw his appeal, and he would be reinstated subject to conditions, but the administrative law judge and Board declined to permit the withdrawals without Board approval of the settlement terms. The trial court ruled that the withdrawals deprived the Board of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that when both parties agree to settle and jointly withdraw from Board proceedings they may do so without further Board approval, much like parties settling an appeal in court.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a 1993 aircraft accident in Tulare County, which was coordinated with related actions. Petitioner filed a peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 against the assigned coordination trial judge 19 days after his appointment as trial judge but more than 20 days after his earlier appointment as coordination motion judge. The trial court denied the challenge as untimely. The Court of Appeal held that the 20-day period under California Rules of Court, rule 1515, runs from the specific assignment as trial judge rather than motion judge, because the coordination scheme provides for two distinct judicial roles that may be filled by different judges. It therefore directed the superior court to vacate its order and grant the challenge.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a mother appealing juvenile court orders declaring her two teenage children dependents and removing them from her custody due to her alcohol abuse and emotional problems affecting her ability to care for them, particularly her son with Down's syndrome. The Tulare County Department of Public Social Services had filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 after multiple incidents and referrals. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding substantial evidence that the mother's issues posed a risk of serious physical harm or illness to the children and that out-of-home placement was appropriate.

family law

In People v. Jasso, the defendant pleaded guilty to a lewd act on a child under 14 and received an eight-year prison sentence. Another judge recalled the sentence under Penal Code section 1170(d) because the original sentencing judge would be unavailable before the 120-day deadline expired, but the original judge later voided the recall order on the ground that only the sentencing judge could exercise that authority. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the statute does not restrict the recall power to the original judge and permits another judge to act when the sentencing judge is unavailable, and it remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Luis Alberto Lomeli, Jr., who was charged with multiple sex offenses, including oral copulation and assault with intent to commit sexual intercourse, as well as false imprisonment and burglary, arising from an incident in which he entered a 16-year-old victim's apartment and assaulted her. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on counts of oral copulation, sexual battery, and false imprisonment, and the trial court imposed an eight-year prison sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of his Wheeler motion alleging discriminatory use of peremptory challenges during jury selection and claimed error in the trial court's jury instruction limiting the use of his prior misdemeanor convictions solely to credibility assessment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that no prima facie case of discrimination had been shown to support the Wheeler motion and that any instructional error regarding the misdemeanors was harmless under the reasonable probability standard.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Hayter Trucking and Shell Western E&P over the termination of a contract for vacuum truck services at oil field facilities. Hayter sued for breach of contract after Shell ended the agreement, but the trial court sustained Shell's demurrers without leave to amend, dismissing the case. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, holding that the contract's terms, including provisions for 30 days' notice of cancellation or immediate termination under specific conditions, should be given their plain meaning, and that Hayter's allegations warranted further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by a worker injured in a 1987 industrial accident at a construction site, who had consulted attorneys Fulfer and Keller solely regarding a workers' compensation claim. The plaintiff alleged the attorneys failed to advise him about potential third-party claims against the general contractor under the peculiar risk doctrine and that his claims were time-barred. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no duty beyond the workers' compensation matter and no viable third-party claim. The appellate court reversed, holding that attorneys owe a duty to advise clients on all available remedies and that factual disputes existed regarding the scope of representation, the viability of a third-party action, and the statute of limitations, precluding summary judgment.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether a waiver of uninsured motorist coverage signed by the plaintiff's grandfather on an original auto insurance policy extended to a later policy issued after he transferred ownership of the vehicle to the plaintiff as sole named insured. The plaintiff sought to compel arbitration of her claim for benefits following an accident with an uninsured driver, but State Farm denied coverage based on the prior waiver. The trial court denied the petition to compel arbitration, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that under Insurance Code section 11580.2 the original deletion agreement remained binding because the second policy was a continuation, replacement, or superseding policy issued by the same insurer.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Gregory Cabral, convicted by jury of multiple sexual offenses against his daughter J., including two counts of penetration by foreign object, one count of sodomy, four counts of rape, and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under Penal Code section 288.5, among others, with findings of special trust and substantial sexual conduct. The court reversed the section 288.5 conviction and remanded for resentencing but affirmed all other convictions and the 39-year aggregate sentence. It reasoned that applying section 288.5 violated ex post facto principles because the statute took effect after some of the alleged conduct occurred, while rejecting claims that the statute and its jury instruction denied unanimous verdicts and that admission of a letter from Cabral to a psychotherapist violated privilege, as the communication was not confidential and any error was harmless given the other evidence.

criminal law