Legal News and Appellate Tips

Each week, TVA appellate attorney Tim Kowal reviews several recent decisions out of the appellate courts in California, and elsewhere, and reports about the ones that might help you get an edge in your cases and appeals.

If you would like to receive weekly updates of the articles posted here, click here to sign up for the newsletter.

Tag: Stare Decisis

A mere procedural error is not a miscarriage of justice,

Sometimes even appellate justices are annoyed by the rules of appellate procedure. Apparently the entire panel would like to affirm this denial of a resentencing petition filed by Arreguin, convicted in 1993 for his part in the murder of Richard Schell. Arreguin served as the getaway driver and urged the gunman to “shoot ‘im, shoot ‘im,” which the gunman did, fatally. But the California Supreme Court in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 717-718 held that earlier findings that a criminal defendant was a “major participant” and showed “reckless indifference” were not binding because, of late, the Court has relaxed those standards.

So upon filing of a resentencing petition and alleging he could not be convicted of murder under the newly relaxed standards, Arreguin is entitled to resentencing.

Justice Gilbert, writing for the majority, concludes it is checkmated by Strong.

But Justice Kenneth Yegan is not going quietly. Although under the doctrine of stare decisis, “I must follow the rulings of the Supreme Court, and if that court wishes to jump off of a figurative Pali, I, lemming-like, must leap right after it. However, I reserve my First Amendment right to kick and scream on my way down to the rocks below.”

Here is how Justice Yegan would have gone about affirming the denial of resentencing:

“Respectfully, there is another way to discharge our duty at the California Court of Appeal. That is to say, the California Constitution admonishes us to not reverse an order unless there is a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 13.) There is no miscarriage of justice here. There is a procedural error only. It does not matter that appellant "checked the box" stating he could not presently be convicted of murder. This statement is false. And because appellant falsely checked this box, a new round of litigation has followed. This is a poor idea stemming from the declared false premise.”

The majority sympathizes, but thinks that operative precedent indicates the error is structural. “[W]e hope our Supreme Court will offer guidance on whether requests for section 1172.6 evidentiary hearings in felony murder convictions prior to Banks and Clark are ever subject to a harmless error analysis.”

Comment: I consider is odd that the court assumes the right at issue here is structural apparently despite a clear articulation of such a rule by the Supreme Court. In another recent case last year in People v. Whitmore (D4d3 no. G059779) the appellate court held that a right to an in-person jury trial was not structural, even though it is hard to imagine a more textbook example of a structural right of procedure.

Read More
Counsel Admonished for Failing to Note Order on Appeal Was Not Appealable

The appellate court in People v. Williams (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 584 admonished a criminal defendant’s attorney for failing to tell the court about a relevant case that had held the kind of order involved there was not appealable.

The court warned that any future violation “may warrant disciplinary review by the State Bar or other corrective action.”

The Upshot: If you are an appellant, this is a good reminder that the Court of Appeal pays close attention to your Statement of Appealability in your opening brief. Do not gloss over it. If there is doubt about appealability, be prepared to raise the collateral-order doctrine, or to seek review on a writ basis. If you are unsure whether your order is appealable, consider consulting an appellate specialist.

In the post I also note one thing that bothers me. Remember that California has no horizontal stare decisis: no Court of Appeal opinion is binding on any other Court of Appeal. So why do we require attorneys to tell appellate courts about other appellate decisions that they have no obligation to follow?

Read More

Tags

Podcast (127)
Videos (109)
Appealability and Appealable Orders (40)
Legal Writing (29)
Anti-SLAPP (29)
Oral Argument (25)
Abuse of Discretion (24)
Mischief (24)
Splits of Authority (23)
Statements of Decision (23)
Record on Appeal (23)
Timely and Untimely Appeals (22)
Unpublished Opinions (22)
Waiver and Forfeiture (22)
Notices of Appeal (21)
California Supreme Court (21)
Stays on Appeal (21)
Judgment Enforcement (20)
Arbitration (19)
Attorney Fees (18)
Briefing (18)
Trial Strategy (16)
Dismissals (15)
Sanctions (15)
Evidentiary Objections (14)
Writ Petitions (13)
Summary Judgments and Summary Adjudications (13)
Dissents (13)
Collateral Orders (13)
Appellate Sanctions (13)
Timeliness (12)
Civility (12)
Exclusion of Evidence (12)
Dismissed Appeals (12)
Preliminary Injunctions (12)
New Trial Motions (12)
Jurisdiction (12)
Posttrial Motions (11)
Experts (11)
Family Law (11)
Trial Procedure (11)
CCP 998 Offers (11)
Federal Courts (11)
Mootness (11)
Motions for Reconsideration (10)
Standards of Review (10)
Implied Findings (10)
Admission of Improper Evidence (9)
Appellate Briefing (9)
Respondent Arguments (8)
Disqualification (8)
Settlements (8)
Appealability (8)
Discovery (7)
Pretrial Procedure (7)
Finding Compelled as a Matter of Law (Failure of Proof) Standard of Review (7)
Probate Appeals (7)
Appellate Bonds (7)
Default Judgments (7)
Appellate Practice (7)
Trial Irregularities and Structural Errors (7)
Federal Appeals (7)
Ninth Circuit (7)
Stipulated Judgments (7)
Disentitlement Doctrine (6)
Substantial Evidence (6)
Litigation Tips (6)
Mediation (6)
Petitions for Review (6)
Depublished Opinions (6)
Ethical Duty of Candor (6)
Trust and Probate (5)
Excessive Damages (5)
Summary Judgments (5)
Standing (5)
Right to Jury Trial (5)
Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Judgments (5)
Notices of Entry (5)
Demurrers (5)
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (5)
Stipulated Reversals (4)
Appealable Orders (4)
Motions in Limine (4)
Jury Instructions (4)
Appeals Treated as Writs (4)
Motions to Dismiss (4)
Expert Opinions (4)
Motions to Vacate (4)
Frivolous Motions (4)
Prejudicial Error (4)
Tentative Rulings (4)
Juror Peremptory Challenges (3)
Writs of Mandamus (CCP 1085) (3)
Personal Jurisdiction (3)
Standards of Evidence (3)
Class Actions (3)
Summary Judgment (3)
Forfeiture and Waiver (3)
Jury Waivers (3)
Landlord Tenant (3)
Frivolous Appeals (3)
Amicus Briefs (3)
Law and Motion (3)
Stays (3)
Legal Practice (3)
Recovery of Costs (3)
Pretrial Issues (3)
Constitutional Law (3)
Legal Tech (3)
Attorney Client Privilege (2)
Civil Theft (2)
Remote Arguments (2)
Invited Error (2)
Post Reversal Issues (2)
Appeals Dismissed (2)
Contempt (2)
ADA and Unruh Accessibility Actions (2)
Court Reporters (2)
Persuasion (2)
Clear and Convincing (2)
Judicial Admissions (2)
Medical Rights (2)
Judicial Bias (2)
Stare Decisis (2)
Alter Ego (2)
Trial by Reference and Pro Tem Judges (2)
Untimeliness (2)
Harmless Error (2)
Pleadings (2)
Comments (2)
Record Designation (2)
Mistrials (2)
New Trial (2)
Premature Appeals (2)
Tentative Opinions and Focus Letters (2)
Podcasts (2)
Waiver (2)
PAGA Actions (2)
Finality and Final Orders (2)
Inherent Authority (1)
Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (1)
Post Reversal (1)
Split of Authority (1)
Evidentiary Presumptions (1)
Juror Misconduct (1)
Ninth CircuitAbuse of Discretion (1)
Constitutional Litigation (1)
Per Se Errors (1)
Typeface (1)
Forfeiture (1)
Attorney Fees - CCP 1021.5 (1)
Issue Selection on Appeal (1)
PostJudgment Litigation (1)
Typography (1)
Nonsuit (1)
Product Liability (1)
Local Rules (1)
Restraining Orders (1)
Trade Restraints (1)
Attorney Feese (1)
DismissalsAppealability and Appealable Orders (1)
U.S. Supreme Court (1)
Administrative Law (1)
Exhaustion of Remedies (1)
Nonsuits JNOVs and 631.8 Judgments (1)
Covid (1)
Free Exercise (1)
Treble Damages (1)
Attorney Misconduct (1)
Motions to Quash (1)
Precedent (1)
Clerks Service of File Stamped Judgment (1)
Notice of Appeal (1)
Property Rights (1)
Cross-Appeals (1)
Petitions for Rehearing (1)
Review as Writ Petition (1)
Trespass (1)
Bankruptcy (1)
Preclusion (1)
Unsupported Arguments (1)
Closing Argument (1)
Punitive Damages (1)
Summary Reversal (1)
Memorandum Opinions (1)
Benefits Obtained Trespass Damages (1)
Judicial Estoppel (1)
State Civil Procedure Comparison Project (1)
Family Court (1)
Record (1)
Summary Reversals (1)
Employment Law (1)
Judicial Misconduct (1)
New Arguments (1)
Anecdotes (1)
Law of the Case (1)
Support Awards (1)
Settled Statements (1)
Erie Problems (1)
Judicial Notice (1)
Waived and Forfeiture (1)
Common Interest Doctrine (1)
Out-of-State Litigant (1)
Designating the Record (1)
Inconsistent Verdicts (1)
Moot Appeals (1)
Judicial Philosophy (1)
Premises Liability (1)
Consenting to Judgments (1)
Art of Persuasion (1)
Dicta (1)
Incorrect Decisions (1)
Post-Appellate Issues (1)
Split Decisions (1)
Trial Tips (1)
Civil Code 3334 (1)
PAGA Attorney Fees (1)
Referral Fees (1)
Third Parties and Nonparties (1)
No categories Legal Writing (0)
Professional Ethics (0)
Appellate (0)
Petitionf ro Review (0)
Retainer Agreements (0)
Landlore Tenant (0)
crossmenuchevron-down