People v Tony Diaz Superior Court tosses unlawful carry conviction

[marcusrn]

NYSRPA is the only proper way to refer to the NYS carry case. This is a situation where the correct pronoun is most imperative. You dishonor Plainfiffs Nash and Koch if you call it Bruen. This is something the dem\socs do so adeptly and conseratives fail at. Words are indeed weapons!

[johncage]

Originally Posted by Foothills

The judge did seem to put a surprising amount of effort into something as simple as a demurrer. It almost seemed like he was having fun opening up a Pandora's box. Given that long career, I see why. After a nearly 50-year legal career, it was probably fun to poke the legislature: hey folks, you need to take a close look at this and start taking it seriously.

i think this is a case where a progressive judge is trying his best to help his criminal friend get a lighter sentence. he knows it won't affect other cases.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

NYSRPA is the only proper way to refer to the NYS carry case. This is a situation where the correct pronoun is most imperative. You dishonor Plainfiffs Nash and Koch if you call it Bruen. This is something the dem\socs do so adeptely and conseratives fail at. Words are indeed weapons!

Actually we denigrate Bruen and all others like him when we call it "Bruen". Like "Schiff for brains" or "Let's go Brandon".

Let "Bruen" serve as a warning to all anti-gun state AG's. Who wants to be the next to be "Bruen'd"?

Bruen it is. Bruen it shall be.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Actually we denigrate Bruen and all others like him when we call it "Bruen". Like "Schiff for brains" or "Let's go Brandon".

Let "Bruen" serve as a warning to all anti-gun state AG's. Who wants to be the next to be "Bruen'd"?

Bruen it is. Bruen it shall be.

I'd go for "NYSRPA Trumps Bruen". But that's just me.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

I'd go for "NYSRPA Trumps Bruen". But that's just me.

But that doesn't just roll off the tongue after a few bourbons, and that is another reason I am sticking with 'Bruen'

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

Originally Posted by johncage

i think this is a case where a progressive judge is trying his best to help his criminal friend get a lighter sentence. he knows it won't affect other cases.

Yeah, I'm sure that is totally consistent with an Orange County Superior Court judge yesterday dismissing a PC25850.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Yeah, I'm sure that is totally consistent with an Orange County Superior Court judge yesterday dismissing a PC25850.

Well don't leave us hanging, give us the gory details!

[Dirtlaw]

Everything begins in the trial court. An appeal from the trial court tends to carry less than a 50-50 chance. We win at the trial level, the road is much smoother.

[40calfunk]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Well don't leave us hanging, give us the gory details!

Second that! Case number, defendant, news article....something, please.

[M1NM]

Originally Posted by Dirtlaw

Does the State have the bxlls to take it further?

No that is why they let the guy off. If it went to trial and he was convicted and then overturned at some higher level it would become case law and could be cited by everyone they arrested for concealed carry. This way in the eyes of the law it never happened.

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

Originally Posted by 40calfunk

Second that! Case number, defendant, news article....something, please.

No. I’m not giving details identifying a person, especially when there is now no criminal record. But I do have a copy of the written decision. On August 1, 2022, Orange County Superior Court Judge James Rogan granted a motion by an Orange County Alternate Public Defender to dismiss a case in which the sole charge was a misdemeanor, PC25850, loaded gun in public. Judge Rogan did not make a finding that PC25850 was unconstitutional in all cases, but he found PC25850 unconstitutional in this case.

The case was about a physical fight among family outside. The accused person retrieved a registered handgun from the car in case something was going to escalate, and the gun was returned to the car once it was over. No allegations of brandishing. Law enforcement officers responded. The accused person admitted to the officers what happened. Officers found the handgun loaded with a round in the chamber.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

There is probably a reason I was never what one would call a successful attorney, but I disagree with all of you when it comes to citing trial court decisions. Where you err is by citing trial level decisions as binding authority. If the only decisions be that of other trial courts, I see nothing wrong with citing them as authority as long as you make it clear that you are citing non-binding trial level authority. In fact, you do your client poor service if you fail to bring it up and that other decision be a well reasoned one of a well respected bench.

Being a "successful" attorney has less to do with ability than with having gone to the "correct" law school.

I regularly had to deal with "knowledgeable" and "well connected" attorneys from "all the right schools" who would consistently tell me that the requirement for the State to prove the corpus of the offense only applied to co-defendants. My response was always the same; "So, the State doesn't have to prove every element? To which they'd reply: "Of course they do! But that's not the same thing."

[Ocdlaw]

Originally Posted by p7m8jg

I'm confused, how does double jeopardy not apply to a dismissed criminal conviction?

He was convicted, no? Judge threw it out. Now you think he can be prosecuted again? I'm not sure how from my experience. Can't be convicted twice for the same crime under the double jeopardy clause, is my experience. I'd like to see the DA try....

Unless you're saying double jeopardy doesn't apply to an appeal of a dismissal. That's correct, it doesn't apply at all.

Double jeopardy applies when the jury is sworn in (or when the first witness is sworn in in a bench trial), not when the complaint or indictment occurs. Since the charges were dismissed before that happened, double jeopardy doesn't apply to the dismissed charges.

[Ocdlaw]

Originally Posted by p7m8jg

I'm confused, how does double jeopardy not apply to a dismissed criminal conviction?

He was convicted, no? Judge threw it out. Now you think he can be prosecuted again? I'm not sure how from my experience. Can't be convicted twice for the same crime under the double jeopardy clause, is my experience. I'd like to see the DA try....

Unless you're saying double jeopardy doesn't apply to an appeal of a dismissal. That's correct, it doesn't apply at all.

Double jeopardy applies when the jury is sworn in (or when the first witness is sworn in in a bench trial), not when the complaint or indictment occurs. Since the charges were dismissed before that happened, double jeopardy doesn't apply to the dismissed charges.

[johncage]

Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Yeah, I'm sure that is totally consistent with an Orange County Superior Court judge yesterday dismissing a PC25850.

was the person charged a career criminal or otherwise part of the democratic socialist progressive family?

[rule44]

The link to that trial judge's decision is dead - where can I find a copy of it?

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by rule44

The link to that trial judge's decision is dead - where can I find a copy of it?

Attached

[rule44]

Thanks AJB!

[rule44]

BTW - I believe that I have standing to bring an action to have an old conviction entirely erased from my record as it was based on an unconstitutional law (not expunged - I already have that worthless order)....if anyone is interested...

[Inoxmark]

Missed that thread. Big thanks to all you lawyers for keeping it informative and relevant.

One thing I don’t understand: Bonta’s letter about good cause requirement was mentioned several times in this thread, and the timing of that letter was mentioned too as if it had a significance to possible outcome of the case or appeal.

My question is why does it matter? It was an internal letter. If I wasn’t frequenting this board I would have absolutely no idea the letter existed and what was in it. As far as I know, nothing in CA carry laws has changed since Bruen, and that’s really all I need to, or expected to know?

[press1280]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

All legal caveats aside... still deserves a "Wow!"

How many people who have been convicted for illegal carry and only illegal carry are going to line up with appeals in hand now? My guess is the floodgates will open - and perhaps this thing will eventually become case law one way or another

Call me skeptical but I can't see this necessarily standing. IF it were people convicted of illegally carrying who had applied for a license, were denied for "good cause" then thats one thing.
Those who never applied and just got caught is another. It definitely would open up floodgates for sure.
IL had the same thing happen after Moore, but in their case there was a total ban on carry, thus there was no way to even carry legally.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by press1280

Call me skeptical but I can't see this necessarily standing. IF it were people convicted of illegally carrying who had applied for a license, were denied for "good cause" then thats one thing.
Those who never applied and just got caught is another. It definitely would open up floodgates for sure.
IL had the same thing happen after Moore, but in their case there was a total ban on carry, thus there was no way to even carry legally.

Do the circumstances (i.e. applied for CCW vs. never even tried) carry any weight legally, or is this just a distinction without a difference? If the standard here is "faced with an unconstitutional restriction on his constitutional right, defendant was free to engage 'with impunity in the exercise of the right…'", then it is irrelevant whether he played the state's game or not.* The requirement of "good cause" in any measure makes the scheme unconstitutional.

* Although this would probably be taken into account during sentencing in the event a conviction was obtained.

[czman86]

Does anyone happen to have access to the court's decision tossing out this case based on Bruen? The link posted by the OP is expired. I'm planning to challenge PC 25400 down in LA County and could use all the help I can get...

Thanks.

[DolphinFan]

Originally Posted by czman86

Does anyone happen to have access to the court's decision tossing out this case based on Bruen? The link posted by the OP is expired. I'm planning to challenge PC 25400 down in LA County and could use all the help I can get...

Thanks.

SEE Post #97. The link is to a .pdf

Good Luck.

[Dr.Lou]

Too late, Bruen is already in “common use”