Latest 5 Cases: People v. Azcona (Constitutional Law), People v. Booker (Criminal Law), Malaga County Water District v. Central Valley Regional ...

Trump’s Lawyers Will Get Away with Facilitating His Anti-Democratic Antics and They Know It

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—predicts that because the lawyer discipline process is broken, President Trump’s lawyers will get away with facilitating his anti-democratic misconduct. Professor Sarat notes that Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) released a letter calling on bar authorities to investigate and punish members of Trump’s post-election legal team, but he points out that while LDAD can shame those members, it still lacks the ability itself to discipline or disbar.

Read More

People v. Azcona

Docket: H045676(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Grover

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Azcona fired multiple shots at a man sitting on a porch, hitting the victim in the arm, while riding past on a bicycle. Police recovered 13 nine-millimeter casings from the scene. Two weeks later, Robles was a passenger in a car when Azcona rode up on his bike, pulled out a gun, and started firing, killing Robles. The driver was also hit. Police found 15 nine-millimeter casings in the area. Two days later, someone matching Azcona’s description, riding a bike, approached a car occupied by two men and brandished a gun. Days later, Azcona tried to rob a teenager, hitting the boy with a gun on the face. Azcona’s final victim was Herrera, whose body was found on a Chinatown road with nine bullet wounds. Most of the surviving victims either identified Azcona in a photo lineup or provided a description consistent with his appearance; surveillance videos placed Azcona near the Chinatown murder around the time of the shooting. Azcona was convicted of premeditated murder, attempted premeditated murder, being a felon in possession of a firearm, negligent discharge of a firearm, and attempted robbery, with multiple enhancements. The court of appeal reversed in part. The trial court committed multiple errors related to the firearms expert testimony, allowing the expert to testify to conclusions not supported by the material on which he relied, and violating Azcona’s constitutional right to confrontation by allowing the expert to testify that his findings were reviewed and approved by a supervisor. Those errors were prejudicial as to one of Azcona’s attempted murder convictions and the related convictions for negligently discharging and possessing a firearm.

People v. Booker

Docket: B295128(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Feuer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendants Booker and Lewis appealed from judgments of conviction entered after a jury trial for first degree murder; attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder; and shooting at an occupied vehicle. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal addressed defendants' contentions that the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on the "kill zone" theory of concurrent specific intent to prove the attempted murder in light of the Supreme Court's holding in People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 596-597. In Canizales, the Supreme Court held that a jury may convict a defendant under the kill zone theory only when the jury finds that: (1) the circumstances of the defendant's attack on a primary target, including the type and extent of force the defendant used, are such that the only reasonable inference is that the defendant intended to create a zone of fatal harm—that is, an area in which the defendant intended to kill everyone present to ensure the primary target's death—around the primary target and (2) the alleged attempted murder victim who was not the primary target was located within that zone of harm. The court agreed with defendants that this is not one of the relatively few cases in which the kill zone theory will be applicable and an instruction appropriate. Therefore, it was prejudicial error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the kill zone theory. The court reversed defendants' convictions of attempted murder and remanded for further proceedings.

Malaga County Water District v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

Docket: F075851(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Brad R. Hill

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

This is one of several cases involving disputes between Malaga and the agencies involved in issuing and enforcing the permits necessary for Malaga to operate its waste treatment facility. In this case, Malaga wanted a wastewater discharge permit allowing it to discharge 0.85 million gallons per day (mgd) into certain disposal ponds. Malaga seeks to set aside the trial court's decision that the permit allowed a discharge of 0.85 mgd, arguing that the permit actually limited Malaga to discharging 0.49 mgd. After noting Malaga's aggressive approach, the Court of Appeal stated that it was unclear why litigation of this type was necessary when alternative administrative procedures could have resolved this issue in a faster and more efficient manner. The court concluded that the primary issue raised in this case is sufficiently important to warrant the use of the court's discretion to hear issues that are technically moot. The court held that the verification process included in Malaga's permit constituted an improper delegation of authority from the Water Quality Board to its executive officer. However, the court did not reach the parties' remaining issues, because those issues were not part of the trial court's final judgment, were not resolved in the first instance by the trial court, and are thus insufficiently developed to determine whether they could either support the trial court's judgment or require vacating the entire permit issued. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Malaga County Water District v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

Docket: F078327(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Brad R. Hill

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

This is one of several cases involving disputes between Malaga and the agencies involved in issuing and enforcing the permits necessary for Malaga to operate its waste treatment facility. In 2016, the Water Quality Board issued an administrative civil liability complaint (ACL) to Malaga, which resulted in a civil liability penalty of more than $1 million. In proceedings before the trial court, Malaga prevailed on the theory that the hearing procedure document utilized to control the proceedings constituted an improper underground regulation. The Court of Appeal conclude that while portions of the hearing procedure constituted a void underground regulation, the trial court incorrectly remanded the matter without considering whether the use of those procedural regulations was harmless. Therefore, the court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether use of the void regulations was prejudicial and, if not, to resolve any further disputes in this matter.

Malaga County Water District v. State Water Resources Control Board

Docket: F075868(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Brad R. Hill

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

This is one of several cases involving disputes between Malaga and the agencies involved in issuing and enforcing the permits necessary for Malaga to operate its waste treatment facility. In this case, the Water Quality Board imposed penalties totaling $78,000 on Malaga for violating the water discharge requirements of its permit. Malaga contends that these penalties were inappropriately imposed for several reasons. The Court of Appeal agreed with Malaga that laches is a proper defense in administrative sanctions proceedings, and that the Water Quality Board utilized a void underground regulation when it issued the "Hearing Procedure for Administrative Civil Liability Complaint R5-2013-0527" (Hearing Procedure). The court explained that the first issue may only affect some of the penalties imposed by the Water Quality Board while the second may require a full rehearing. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether a writ should issue based on one or both of Malaga's right to present a laches defense and the Water Quality Board's use of a void underground regulation via the Hearing Procedure. The court affirmed in all other respects.