Double Jeopardy Violating Protective, Restraining Order?

A violation of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy can happen if one is prosecuted separately for a violation of a criminal protective order and a civil restraining order when the protected party in each order is the same person and the violation involves the same conduct.  However, the details of the violation and the conduct prosecuted can be separated so there is no double jeopardy, so a careful and close look at the two complaint is important.  To read more about this issue, please click on the following link –

Violation of a Civil Protective Order (PC 273.6)?

If one violates a civil protective order issued to protect another person, including elder adults, children, former employees or school employees, the judge can sentence the violating party to up to a year in county jail for a first offense or up to three years in state prison (to be served in county jail). If the restrained person purchases or obtains a firearm, even if the weapon is inoperable, that also can be punished as a felony with up to three years in state prison (in county jail). To read more about these laws involving civil protective order violations, please click on the following link –

Can Rehabilitation in Prison be 1170.26 Good Cause?

Penal Code § 1170.26, also known as the Three-Strikes Reform Law, allowed a person serving an indeterminate sentence to request resentencing on the third strike within two years of the law’s passage date in November of 2012 or later upon a showing of good cause. In the following case involving a prisoner who filed a motion for relief under 1170.126, his first such attempt was denied because the court regarded doing so as imposing a danger to public safety. Years later, after rehabilitating himself in prison, he tried such a motion again, arguing his delay in filing was due to rehabilitation and this was good cause. How did the court respond? To read the answer, please click on the following link –

Using Report for Insanity Plea and Mental Health Diversion

In considering a request for mental health diversion, a judge can consider a report prepared after a defendant enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. As shown in the summary of the following case, the judge can consider a wide variety of documents in order to accurately evaluate if defendant is suitable for mental health diversion and qualified for it. To read more about this case, please click on the following link –

What is Vehicle Code § 41500(a) For Those in Custody?

Vehicle Code § 41500(a) permits a person serving time in state prison, county jail or even a juvenile institution to ask that the judge assigned to a traffic citation which may be open to dismiss the case so that when that person leaves state prison, county jail or a juvenile facility, he or she can drive and reintegrate into society. This is most commonly associated with having traffic cases with pending bench warrants. The judge can recall the warrant and dismiss the case under 41500(a). To read more about this law (which does not apply to DUI cases), please click on the following link –

Excusal of Possible Juror in Death Penalty Case Proper

A juror opposed to the death penalty may still serve on a jury in a case with a possible death penalty sentence if that juror can put aside his or her personal beliefs and follow the law. This is obviously easier said than done. A careful (some might say clever) prosecutor will not ask the juror if he or she would follow the law if so instructed and instead will seek to excuse that juror. To see how such a juror was excused (but could have been kept on the jury by better questioning by the defense), please click on the following link –

Motion to Suppress Evidence from Car Near Shooting

The trial court judge in Oakland denied a motion to suppress evidence gathered without a warrant from a rental car parked near some shell casings on the ground after a shooting. Defendant then appealed the ruling to the First Appellate District in San Francisco, which affirmed the trial court, basing its ruling on the automobile exception even though the driver of the rental car was nowhere near to drive the car away. We find this ruling troubling, as it seems to be an overly broad application of the automobile exception. To read more about this, please click on the following link –

SB 1437 Relief: Murder Resentenced to Burglary and Robbery?

If a judge grants relief under Senate Bill 1437 (via Penal Code § 1170.95), the judge may resentence defendant to two underlying felonies, i.e., burglary and robbery. There is no requirement that the judge is limited to resentencing defendant on just one underlying crime. This is what took place in the following case summary and the First Appellate District affirmed such a new sentence. To read about this case, please click on the following link –