- Criminal: San Bernardino Superior Judge Kawika Smith’s denial of resentencing affirmed in People v. Gay (FVI08impl133/E079283)
- James Gay was convicted of first degree and second degree murder, and sentenced to 25 years to life and 15 years to life. Prosecutors argued Gay had planned the 1998 murder of Christopher Harvey, who Gay accused of robbing his house. While Gay’s accomplice, Steffon Moore, was transporting Harvey to the grave they had dug for him, Harvey shot and killed Moore. Gay was convicted of both murders, because, under the felony murder rule, a defendant can be convicted of murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if they did not directly murder the victim. Gay filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code Section 1172.6, which allows people convicted under the felony murder rule to be resentenced. The court heard Gay’s arguments, and decided to deny his petition. He appealed. The Court of Appeal found no arguable issues, and affirmed the court’s judgment. In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Frank Menetrez argued that the appeal should have been dismissed.
- Criminal: Riverside Superior Judge John Molloy’s denial of resentencing reversed with directions in People v. Probus (SWF003257/E072780A)
- James Probus participated with Jeremy Martinez in a 2002 robbery that resulted in Ronald Sommer’s death. Probus turned over information about the robbery to get out of a felon in possession of ammunition charge. Both Probus and Martinez brought a gun to Sommer’s house, and it was never clear who fatally shot Sommer. Both robbers were tried, and Probus was convicted of first degree murder under the felony murder rule, because he participated in a dangerous felony that resulted in Sommer’s death, even though prosecutors did not prove he was the shooter. Probus petitioned to be resentenced after California changed the felony murder rule, under Penal Code Section 1172.6. The court denied his petition, and Probus appealed. Due to a recent California Supreme Court ruling, People v. Strong, the Court of Appeal overrules the trial court’s order, and finds that Probus’ petition should be heard.
- Labor: San Bernardino Superior Judge Donald Alvarez’s denial of writ of mandate affirmed in Jones v. Loma Linda (CIVDS1938759/E076772)
- Fire Battalion Chief Steve Jones was fired by the Loma Linda city manager in 2014 after he failed to report that a firefighter in his unit punched a patient that was receiving paramedic treatment. This case involved two appellate cases. Jones petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate, which the court denied, and he appealed. A 2019 ruling in the case E067781 directed the city council to hear Jones’ case. The city council heard the case and decided to terminate Jones. Jones filed another writ of mandate, which the trial court denied. He appealed, resulting in this ruling. He claimed the city council was biased in favor of the city because the attorney who represented the city in front of the city council had represented the city in prior writ proceedings involving Jones’ case. He also claimed the council abused its discretion by deciding to terminate his employment. The Court of Appeal disagreed. They ruled that the city’s attorney did not communicate with the city council during the earlier actions in the case. This lack of communication legally established a lack of bias in this specific relationship. They also ruled that the council’s discipline by firing was within their discretion.
- Juvenile: Riverside Superior Judge Samah Shouka’s conviction vacated in Riverside County Probation Dept. v. Superior Court (JUV086925/E077962M)
- In 1996, a 15-year-old committed multiple crimes, including rape, carjacking, robbery and kidnapping, and was sentenced in adult court. His sentence was vacated in 2021, after the law was changed to prevent a 15-year-old being transferred into adult court. Instead, at the age of 40, the juvenile court placed him in Pathways, a youth treatment facility operated by county probation. The defendant and the probation department petitioned him to be released from the program, arguing the juvenile court had no jurisdiction over him anymore. The Court of Appeal agreed, and vacated his commitment to Pathways.
- Criminal: San Bernardino Superior Temporary Judge Ronald Christianson’s denial of youthful offender resentencing consideration affirmed in People v. Steele (FSB029421/E077444)
- Teejay Steele was convicted of rape in 2001, and sentenced to 80 years to life. Steele was 20 when he committed the offense. He moved for youthful offender resentencing consideration. The trial court denied his motion because he was sentenced under both the One Strike Law and the Three Strikes Law. Steele appealed, arguing the legal exclusion from the youth offender parole process of defendants sentenced under the Three Strikes Law violates his equal protection rights. The Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, saying that the greater recidivism risk from repeat offenders gives the law a rational basis. In a concurring opinion, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Justice Marsha Slough wrote that Steele is eligible for a youth offender parole hearing as a One Strike offender, but that his position as a Three Strikes offender makes him ineligible.
- Criminal: Riverside Superior Judge John Molloy’s denial of resentencing reversed in People v. Cross (ICR15222/E074380)
- Harley Cross was convicted of first degree murder on a felony murder theory in 1992. He petitioned to be resentenced in 2019, due to a change in California law, Penal Code Section 1172.6. The trial court denied his petition, and he appealed. The Court of Appeal, citing recent precedent People v. Strong in the California Supreme Court, agreed with Cross, and reversed the order denying his petition.
- Family law: Riverside Superior Judge Kelly Hansen’s denial of petition for extraordinary writ in J.H. v. Superior Court (SWJ1500122/E079949)
- A 2-year-old was placed in foster care after law enforcement found him alone, in soaking wet clothing, and overdosing likely from fentanyl. His mother filed a writ petition to overturn her child’s placement in foster care. The Court of Appeal denied her petition.