People v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 19 December 2017
• Docket Number: F071330
• Citation: 18 Cal.App.5th 727,227 Cal.Rptr.3d 139
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Carlos David SANCHEZ, Defendant and Respondent.

18 Cal.App.5th 727

227 Cal.Rptr.3d 139

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Carlos David SANCHEZ, Defendant and Respondent.

F071330

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Filed December 19, 2017

Diane Louise Nichols, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.

Birgit Fladager, District Attorney, and Tanja Titre, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

SMITH, J

This case involves a permanent anti-gang injunction obtained by the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office (SCDA) in 2009, from the Stanislaus County Superior Court, against the Deep South Side Norteños (DSSN) street gang (also known as Deep South Side Modesto or DSSM) and 12 named members of the gang. Sanchez was not named in, served in, or a party to, the proceeding in which the injunction was granted. Nonetheless, in 2010, when he was 17 years old, Sanchez was served with the injunction by the Modesto Police Department, without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether he was a covered gang member. In 2013, he was arrested and charged with misdemeanor criminal contempt for allegedly violating the injunction. This appeal lies from that criminal contempt case.

Sanchez filed a motion to dismiss the contempt charge. He argued he was not an active gang member covered by the injunction and that enforcement of the injunction against him violated his right to procedural due process, under the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court determined that the injunction burdened Sanchez's constitutionally-protected liberty interests, whereby Sanchez was entitled to some adequate predeprivation process to determine whether he was an active gang member covered by the injunction. Since no predeprivation process was available to Sanchez to challenge the SCDA's determination that he was covered by the injunction, the trial court concluded that enforcement of the injunction against him violated his right to procedural due process. In light of its conclusion, the court dismissed the misdemeanor criminal contempt charge predicated on the application of the injunction to Sanchez.

The People appeal the trial court's rulings. We will affirm. We emphasize, however, that our holding is limited. We decide only that the trial court properly found that application of the injunction to Sanchez under the circumstances of this case, violated his right to procedural due process, necessitating, in this instance, dismissal of the contempt charge. Furthermore, since Sanchez has not challenged the facial constitutionality of any of the injunction's terms, our opinion does not speak to that issue.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 2, 2014, Sanchez was charged by information with felony possession of concentrated cannabis (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a) ); misdemeanor criminal contempt for violating "the terms of an injunction restraining the activities of a criminal street gang or any of its members," by associating with gang members (count 2; Pen. Code,¹ § 166, subd. (a)(9) );² and misdemeanor driving while driving privilege was suspended or revoked (count 3; Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a) ).³ Sanchez pleaded not guilty to counts 1 and 3, and demurred as to count 2. On November 24, 2014, the trial court reduced count 1, the cannabis possession charge, to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. Thereafter, all pending charges were misdemeanors.

This appeal relates only to the misdemeanor contempt charge, which, as stated above, was predicated on an alleged violation of an anti-gang injunction. The injunction at issue was the "Judgment of Permanent Injunction" (gang injunction or injunction) issued on September 11, 2009, by Judge John G. Whiteside in Stanislaus County Superior Court case No. 642033. The trial court here took judicial notice of the Superior Court file pertaining to the proceeding in which the gang injunction was issued.

On July 29, 2014, Sanchez moved for an Evidence Code section 402 hearing and for an order dismissing the criminal contempt charge on grounds of procedural due process under the federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Vasquez v. Rackauckas (9th Cir. 2013) 734 F.3d 1025 ( Rackauckas ), and Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 ( Mathews ). Sanchez contended the injunction interfered with his constitutionally-protected liberty interests and, because he was not a party to the original injunction proceeding, due process required that he be afforded some kind of process before the injunction was enforced against him. The People filed an opposition and Sanchez filed a reply. The People thereafter filed supplemental points and authorities and Sanchez filed a response thereto.

On February 5, 2015, the court held a hearing on Sanchez's motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the court jointly considered Sanchez's instant motion to dismiss as well as similar motions in other misdemeanor contempt cases related to the same gang injunction (Sanchez was a defendant in some of the other cases as well). The court denied all the motions before it. Thereafter, on February 10, 2015, the court indicated it would reconsider its initial rulings on its own motion, in light of the Rackauckas case. The court calendared a hearing for this purpose on February 17, 2015.

In connection with the reconsideration hearing, the prosecutor sought to submit additional briefing for the court's consideration. The court inquired: "What issue do you need to brief that hasn't been briefed and opposed by both sides?" The prosecutor responded: "In what circumstances in the due process context is the court permitted to dismiss." The prosecutor indicated she wanted to expatiate on the point that "nothing was dismissed" in the Rackauckas case. The court responded that additional briefing on that point was unnecessary because Rackauckas had "a different procedural posture," in that it enjoined enforcement of an anti-gang injunction against a particular class of plaintiffs. The court also clarified that the parties would have the opportunity to present legal arguments at the reconsideration hearing. Specifically, the court stated it would announce a tentative ruling and then allow the parties to "argue whether [the tentative ruling was] appropriate."

At the hearing to reconsider its prior denial of Sanchez's motion to dismiss, the court stated that after further deliberation it was inclined to reverse its earlier ruling. Noting the issues had already been briefed "ad infinitum," the court nonetheless solicited argument, observing the parties had notice that the court was relying on Rackauckas and Mathews . After hearing the parties' arguments, the court ruled that enforcement of the injunction against Sanchez violated his right to procedural due process and dismissed the contempt charge.

DISCUSSION

Dismissal of the Misdemeanor Contempt Charge

The People appeal the trial court's rulings. They argue the trial court erred in finding that enforcement of the gang injunction violated Sanchez's right to procedural due process. The People also contend the trial court further erred in dismissing the criminal contempt charge based on its determination that the injunction was unconstitutional as applied to Sanchez. Sanchez responds that the trial court correctly concluded that enforcement of the injunction against him violated procedural due process, and, in turn, properly dismissed the criminal contempt charge.

We review issues of law, including constitutional questions, de novo. ( Vo v. City of Garden Grove (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 425, 433, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 ; People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 893-894, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 15 P.3d 243.) We uphold the trial court's factual determinations as long as the record contains substantial evidence to support them. ( Cromer , supra , at pp. 893-894, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 15 P.3d 243 ; People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 160, 107 Cal.Rptr. 13, 507 P.2d 621.) Accordingly, we will review the trial court's legal conclusions regarding Sanchez's due process claim de novo and any factual determinations underlying its rulings for substantial evidence.

We will affirm the trial court. The trial court correctly found that application of the injunction to Sanchez, under the circumstances applicable here, violated his constitutional right to procedural due process. In other words, Sanchez was constitutionally entitled to greater procedural protections than were afforded by the SCDA in subjecting him to the injunction. Furthermore, since service in 2010 of the permanent injunction on Sanchez was invalid for denial of procedural due process, the trial court properly dismissed the contempt charge.

I. Background

A. The Terms and Manner of Enforcement of the Gang Injunction

California's Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act, section 186.20 et seq., creates private and public causes of action for purposes of "enjoining, abating, and preventing" the "nuisance" that results when a "building or place" is "used by members of a criminal street gang" for committing criminal offenses. (§ 186.22a, subd. (a).) In addition, the "general public nuisance statutes," namely Code of Civil Procedure section 731 and Civil Code sections 3479 - 3480, provide an independent basis for enjoining a gang and its members from engaging in nuisance activity. (See People ex. Rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1119, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277, 929 P.2d 596.) The gang injunction at issue here arose from an action to abate gang activity under California's general public nuisance statutes.

On June 10, 2009, the SCDA filed a public nuisance action based on Code of Civil Procedure section 731 and Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480, in the Stanislaus County Superior Court (case No. 642033). The action named as defendants "Deep South Side Norteños" (also known as " ‘DSSN,’ Deep South Side Modesto, ‘DSSM,’ Deep South Side Locos, ‘DSSL,’ Deep South...