eBrief May 17, 2019

FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019


Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Criminal Law and Procedure

The rule of Dean v. U.S., which held that when a defendant is facing two consecutive sentences—one for a predicate offense, which does not carry a mandatory minimum sentence, and one for an offense committed under 18 U.S.C. §924(c), which does carry a mandatory minimum—the sentencing judge has the discretion to consider the defendant’s mandatory sentence when deciding the proper time to be served for the predicate offense, was statutory, not constitutional, and even if it were constitutional, the Supreme Court has not made the rule retroactive to cases on collateral review.

Garcia v. United States; filed May 16, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-71759


Criminal Law and Procedure

Congress acted within its constitutional authority in enacting 52 U.S.C. §30121(a) and the statute does not violate foreign nationals’ First Amendment rights; §30109(d) does not require that the government prove that a defendant harbored the specific intent to evade §30121. Assuming that the Second Amendment extends to non-immigrant visa holders, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(5)(B)’s prohibition on firearm possession and ownership by non-immigrant visa holders serves an important public interest in crime control and public safety, without substantially burdening a non-immigrant visa holder’s assumed Second Amendment right; §922(g) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to B1/B2 visa holders.

United States v. Singh; filed May 16, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-50337


California Supreme Court

Criminal Law and Procedure

Conspiracy to commit murder does not render a defendant death-eligible. Substantial evidence did not support a lying in wait special-circumstance true finding where the prosecutor introduced no evidence of a surprise attack nor any evidence of how the victim was subdued.

People v. Dalton; filed May 16, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2255


California Court of Appeal

Criminal Law and Procedure

A trial court erred in sentencing a defendant based on sentencing enhancements the prosecution failed to plead.

People v. Jimenez; Sixth District; filed May 16, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2290


Government Law

The Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission does not have jurisdiction to rule on matters not delegated to it by the Charter of the County of Los Angeles; there is no charter provision or Civil Service Rule permitting the Commission to hear appeals related to Rule 9.07, and the Commission does not have general jurisdiction to hear appeals related to medical issues. Rule 9.07B allows an employee to “request” a medical reevaluation, but the Occupational Health Program is under no obligation to grant the request.

County Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services v. Civil Service Commission of Los Angeles County (HOA); Second District, Div. Two; filed May 15, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2298


Real Property

An urgency ordinance that imposed a temporary moratorium on charter schools was invalid because the findings of “numerous inquiries and requests for the establishment and operation of charter schools” did not amount to a “current and immediate threat” as required by government Code §65858(c).

California Charter Schools Association v. City of Huntington Park; Second District, Div. Three; filed April 25, 2019, publication ordered May 16, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2304


Real Property

The Development Fee Act allows a city to impose fees on developments that have a reasonable relationship to the burden posed by the development; a fee based in significant part on costs the city will not incur does not have a reasonable relationship to the cost to of a public facility attributable to a new development; nothing in the act prohibits a city from imposing fees to maintain its current level of service.

Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda; First District, Div. Four; filed May 15, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2308



SSL Landlord, LLC v. County of San Mateo; First District, Div. Three; filed May 15, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2315