Welcome to the kickoff of my professionally-created website! I’m reviewing California Court of Appeal opinions that are NOT published, and pulling out of them gems of wisdom from any case in which the court has provided some level of relief to a defendant (even if so little as getting an abstract of judgment to properly reflect the sentence or the crimes of conviction).
What You’ll Find in These Summaries
As I’ve said more elaborately elsewhere on this site, the unpublished opinions cannot be cited, but they have to base their decisions on cases that HAVE been published. So for each tidbit I have extracted from the opinion, I have listed the citable authority relied on by the Court of Appeal. Because the opinion cannot be cited as authority, my focus is not so much on the reasoning behind the result. (For example, I likely will not recite all the facts that show why the officers did not have probable cause for a warrantless search.)
Instead, I will pull out principles that might be useful in ANY search and seizure appeal, or even in any criminal appeal no matter the issue. What is the standard of review? When does the appellate court defer to the reasoning of the superior court? When does the appellate court conduct independent review? De novo review? Is this Watson error or Chapman error (important in deciding whether an acknowledged error results in relief or is found to not have made a difference, so no harm, no foul)?
Not Your Typical Summaries
Some summaries will lay out the context in which the issue arises. Maybe include some background on laws regarding the recall of the sentence in light of changes in the definitions of murder. Or how enhancements or selection of sentencing scheme may have to be reexamined in light of changes in the elements required for conduct to be criminal (such as whether a strike conviction for a gang offense is still a valid strike in light of changes in the gang offense statute). And so on.
So these summaries are likely different from what you might be used to reading in legal newspapers that summarize published opinions, or the summaries you might run across in publications by various defense-oriented organizations. I’m less interested in pointing out the reason the court ruled the way it did, and more interested in what “universal” rules it applied in reaching its result. (The same principles are cited in the unpublished decisions that do NOT result in relief, but I can’t read and summarize them all!)
Why Universal Rules, Not Case-Specific Facts?
Why that focus? Because every appellate brief has to inform the appellate court of the applicable rules! And since it is expected, it is important to know the options so you can intelligently argue in favor of the option that most favors your client or, if there is only one option, how YOUR client is entitled to win even given that principle. For example, if you know that there was no objection in the trial court to preserve what would otherwise be a good issue (thus subjecting it to not being even considered by the court, as it was forfeited for lack of timely objection), then you can frame your argument to demonstrate how an objection would have been futile, or how the issue is a straight question of law that the court can consider despite the lack of objection, or why, in your client’s case, the court should exercise its discretion and treat the issue anyway (which it has the right to do). And you may find authority in the PUBLISHED cases cited in the unpublished cases,
If you can characterize an error as a violation of a federal constitutional right, then it is likely that the Chapman standard applies (reversal unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). If it is argued as a state error, then prejudice will be assessed under Watson–no reversal unless, but for the error, there is a reasonable probability that there would have been an outcome more favorable to the defense. So whatever your error is, you want to persuade the court–based on the law, of course, not just on desire–that the Chapman standard applies, not Watson. Or if you can’t, then you need to actively demonstrate just how a better result for your client would likely have been the outcome had the error not been committed. Courts of Appeal are seldom swayed by bald statements “and my client was prejudiced by the error.” Maybe the citations following the summaries on prejudice will give you the info you need to make your best case for a suitable finding of prejudice.
Using Citations as a Research Springboard
While you cannot cite the unpublished opinion itself, you can review the citations I have listed below the discussion of the lack of objection or prejudice (or whatever). While not universally true, it is not unusual for the published opinion the court relied on to have a factual situation somewhat like the case it is deciding. Maybe that citation will be a springboard for you to find one or more cases very close to your own. The closer your research relies on cases similar to your own, the harder it is for the opposition to argue that the cited case is so distinguishable as to be not helpful.
How to Read These Summaries
My plan is to have a brief statement of context (a summary of the summary) at the beginning of each post, but I hope you consider it to be simply the context in which the principles were announced, and that you click to the full summary to see those “rules” that the courts generally follow to guide their analyses. Don’t look at a summary that mentions burglary and ignore it because your case is a drug offense. The summary itself may have little to do with the law of burglary, and instead it will contain “binding” maxims that you’ll need to be aware of (and address) in your briefing, whether your case is a burglary or a drug sale or a homicide or ….
Want the Full Opinion?
Remember also that, if you are an attorney, I will, on your request, send you the full unpublished decision to the email address you have showing on the state bar website. (Unless, of course, there is an overwhelming demand for this service, in which case I’d probably have to rescind the offer.)
Happy Hunting!
Gary
