Drugs - deferred entry of judgment
People v. Ochoa (3rd Dist., 6/15/09, C059868) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Yolo County Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner prejudicially erred in denying defendant deferred entry of judgment under Penal Code section 1000 on the basis of a Health & Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (b) conviction for marijuana possession that occurred more than two years before the current offenses. The AG conceded that marijuana conviction records are supposed to be destroyed after two years, and therefore Judge Warriner should not have considered it.
Gangs - insufficient evidence
People v. Ramon (5th Dist., 7/7/09, F054603) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Kern County Superior Court Judge Sidney Chapin erred in allowing Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1) enhancement to go to the jury, as it was not supported by substantial evidence. Evidence of car theft and gun possession was not enough to support expert's opinion that crimes were committed for benefit of street gang. "The People's expert simply informed the jury of how he felt the case should be resolved ..... There were no facts from which the expert could discern whether [appellants] were acting on their own behalf ... or were acting on behalf of the [gang]." Fact that they were both gang members and were in the gang territory is not enough. Court found no situation where expert testimony about a possible reason for committing a crime was sufficient, by itself, to establish the crime was committed with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members.
Jury selection - racial motivation in striking jurors
Ali v. Hickman (9th Cir., 7/7/09, 07-16731) ___ F.3d ___
Comparative juror analysis, in combination with other facts, "demonstrates that the prosecutor [Stephen Wagstaffe] purported race-neutral reasons for striking at least one of the jurors were pretexts for racial discrimination. We further hold that the California Court of Appeal's contrary conclusion was not only incorrect, but unreasonably so." Habeas granted.
Search & seizure - exigent circumstances
People v. Rogers (Ca. Sup. Ct., 7/6/09, S064337) ___ Cal.4th ___
Officer who had received missing person report from victim's mother, inconsistent information from husband (defendant), who showed no concern over her disappearance, and saw vein in defendant's neck start to throb when officer mentioned searching storage area, could enter the area without a warrant under exigent circumstances doctrine.
Weapons - only one gun conviction
People v. Ramon (5th Dist., 7/7/09, F054603) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Violation of Penal Code section 12031(a)(1) is a crime, and subdivision (a)(2)(A) through (G) only establishes the penalty based on circumstances of crime and offender. Court could only enter judgment for one conviction.
