THE WEEK’S CASES: for the week ending February 17, 2017
by Al Menaster, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office.
ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO A RESIDENCE IS NOT CURED BY A LATER SEARCH WARRANT
The police repeatedly ignored the defendant’s invocations of Miranda and browbeat him, eventually getting consent to search his residence. The C/A says that under the totality of the circumstances, the consent was invalid. The police went into the defendant’s residence without a warrant and there was no [More…] »
Criminal Law Case Summaries: December 2016 – January 2017
by Gary Mandinach, Attorney at Law, California Appellate Project, Los Angeles, California
1. People v. Brown (2016) Cal.App.5th , reported on December 21, 2016, in 2016 Los Angeles Daily Journal 12496, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 2 held that section 137, subdivision (c), which makes it a felony to induce a person to give false testimony or to give false information to a police officer, is not necessarily more specific than section 136.1, subdivision (b)(2), making it a felony to attempt to dissuade a victim or witness from participating in the prosecution of a crime, so conduct that violates both statutes may be prosecuted under either. The prosecutors’ decision to charge the defendant under section 136.1, subdivision (b)(2), which carries a greater potential penalty than section 137, subdivision (c), did not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the absence of a showing that the decision was arbitrary or irrational. (See People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838-839.) The trial court did not err in failing to instruct on section 137 and correctly barred counsel from arguing that defendant was guilty under section 137 rather than under section 136.1. Counsel was essentially seeking an instruction on a lesser related offense, which could not be granted without the prosecution’s consent. (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 668; see also People v. Birks (1998) 10 Cal.4th 108.)
2. People v. Relkin (2016) Cal.App.5th , reported on December 23, 2016, in 2016 Los Angeles Daily Journal 12632, the Third Appellate District held that it was not in error to require, as a condition of probation that the defendant to obtain “written permission from the probation officer” before leaving the State of California was reasonably related to his conviction for sale and transportation of controlled substances and did not unduly inhibit his exercise of the right to travel. (See In re White (1979) [More…] »
New Self-Study Video
Trial Counsel’s Responsibilities to Youth Offenders
in Light of Franklin & Perez
Recorded Saturday, Jan. 14, 2017
MCLE Self-Study Opportunity Recorded Live
Recorded Saturday, January 14, 2017
This is the early release version (Only minor edits have been made, no titles added yet, sound is has not been processed for balance and compression, and the resolution of this field recording will be replaced soon with the studio equipment recorded version).
Laura Arnold, Deputy Public Defender, Riverside County
Bart Sheela, Deputy Alternate Public Defender, San Diego County
See below for the exact order of program topics and speakers.
(Note: You must log in to view this members-only content below (see login box on upper right panel of this page)
Proposition 64 – The Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 – Resource Center for Defenders
Most recent update: January 3, 2017 | 9:56 pm
First published November 10, 2016. Updated as additional documents become available.
This Proposition 64 Resource Center (The Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016), will be seeing many resources added over the next few weeks, so be sure to subscribe to the Defender411 notices for this website if you’d like a notice each time something is posted on the site, including to this resource center.
(Note: You must log in (over on the right side of this page) to view this members-only content (see log-in box on upper right panel of this page) If you have problems logging in, you can email tech support at claratech @ cpda.org All practice tips and practice samples are on this site but members cannot access them until fully logged in on this site, which you may do by using the login box on the right side of this page. If you have not renewed your membership, you can do that via this link, or you can call during business hours 1.800.538.4993 x 304 and renew by phone to gain access to this members website.
New mobile apps for Claranetters and CPDA members – Download from the Apple &/or Google Play store
The CLARANET App.
The Claranet Subscribers App was created to help subscribers navigate the network of services available which includes a motions bank, articles and booklets bank, criminal practice codes, a huge library of self-study resources, a vBulletin and Yammer based forums, a list server (however, this app does not involve the email list server system – email programs are best left to handle that, presently).
The app also enables subscribers who use the new app to conduct direct messaging (one-to-one), and group messaging. The app also includes some other handy features such as a calendar that includes links to register for CPDA continuing legal education events held throughout the state. It’s easy to install and there’s no fees associated with use of the app as long as one maintains current membership in CPDA, and pays the additional annual subscription fee for the Claranet service ($175/year).
Two download options for the Claranet App:
1. Download from the Google Play Store:
2. Download from the Apple App Store: