 |
California
Cases |
|||||
|
Table of Forms |
|
|
Vcielaw.com |
Law Student Section |
 |
|
05-14-01 to 05-16-01
05-17-01 to 05-17-01
05-18-01 to 05-18-01
05-24-01 to 05-24-01
California Cases
Slip Opinions May 2001
05-14-01 to 05-14-01
| May 16 2001 |
D036738.PDF D036738.DOC |
Resendiz v. Sup. Ct. 5/16/01 CA4/1 At the March 7, 2000, California general election the voters approved Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Initiative (Proposition 21). Section 26 of Proposition 21, which became effective the day after the election, amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.[1] The amendment replaced the former section 707, subdivision (d) in its entirety with a new provision that permits the prosecuting authority, in its discretion, to file certain criminal accusations against juveniles in either the adult criminal court or the juvenile court. As a result, Proposition 21 permits the prosecuting authority to determine in its discretion not only whether a crime should be charged, what crime should be charged and who should be charged, but also which of two legislatively authorized sentencing schemes the court may use to impose sentence if the charges are found true. We conclude that by placing within the discretion of the prosecuting authority the determination of which of two legislatively authorized sentencing schemes are available to the courts, Proposition 21's amendment to section 707, subdivision (d) violates the constitutional principle of the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government. |
| May 16 2001 |
D036738.DOC |
Resendiz v. Sup. Ct. 5/16/01 CA4/1 done |
| May 16 2001 |
B139382.PDF |
P. v. Ly 5/16/01 CA2/5
Defendant, Bronson Ly, appeals from his convictions for first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)) and arson. (§ 451, subd. (b).) Defendant argues the trial court improperly: denied his motion made pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 276-277; intruded upon the secrecy of the jury deliberations; and denied presentence custody credits. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court should have awarded presentence custody credits. In the published portion of the opinion, we discuss defendant’s right to presentence conduct credits for a murder committed on February 27, 1996. We affirm the judgment as modified. |
| May 16 2001 |
B139382.DOC |
P. v. Ly 5/16/01 CA2/5 |
| May 16 2001 |
B143524.PDF not done |
P. v. Hill 5/16/01 CA2/6 Alfred Frazier appeals from the judgment following his conviction on one count of committing a lewd act with a child under 14 and one count of annoying or molesting a child under 18. We hold the jury was improperly instructed under former CALJIC No. 2.50.01 and this error prejudiced defendant. Therefore, we reverse. |
| May 16 2001 |
B143524.DOC |
P. v. Hill 5/16/01 CA2/6 |
| May 16 2001 |
B139382.PDF |
P. v. Ly 5/16/01 CA2/5
Defendant, Bronson Ly, appeals from his convictions for first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)) and arson. (§ 451, subd. (b).) Defendant argues the trial court improperly: denied his motion made pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 276-277; intruded upon the secrecy of the jury deliberations; and denied presentence custody credits. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court should have awarded presentence custody credits. In the published portion of the opinion, we discuss defendant’s right to presentence conduct credits for a murder committed on February 27, 1996. We affirm the judgment as modified. |
| May 16 2001 |
B139382.DOC |
P. v. Ly 5/16/01 CA2/5 |
| May 31 2001 |
S081934.PDF S081934.DOC |
P. v. Garcia 5/31/01 SC CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Criminal-May 31 2001 People v. Garcia C.A. 1st May 31 Decision: Conviction for willful failure to register as sex offender requires proof defendant had actual knowledge of the registration requirement P. v. Garcia 5/31/01 SC |
