7 results for 'judge:"Snauffer"'.
J. Snauffer finds that the instructions given to the jury in defendant's sexual abuse case did not create a preferential credibility standard for the complaining witness. One instruction told the jury to be careful when fact-finding on the basis on one witness's testimony and the other told the jury that a conviction may legally be based on one witness's testimony. However, the trial court erred in convicting him for distinct acts of sexual abuse that occurred during the period for which he was also convicted of continuous sexual abuse. Vacated in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Snauffer, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: F085895, Categories: Sentencing, Sex Offender, Jury Instructions
[Modified.] J. Snauffer makes two changes to a previously published opinion with no change in judgment. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to recalculate defendant's maximum term of commitment for a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to stalking and criminal threat charges. The rule that a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to recalculate the sentence for a defendant who has begun serving time also applies to a recalculation of the term of commitment for a defendant whose period of commitment has commenced. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Snauffer, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: F085699, Categories: Threats, Jurisdiction, Commitment
J. Snauffer finds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to recalculate defendant's maximum term of commitment for a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to stalking and criminal threat charges. The rule that a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to recalculate the sentence for a defendant who has begun serving time also applies to a recalculation of the term of commitment for a defendant whose period of commitment has commenced. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Snauffer, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: F085699, Categories: Threats, Jurisdiction, Commitment
J. Snauffer finds that the trial court improperly invalidated a regulatory notice issued by the Geologic Energy Management Division which requires oil operators to cease operations if a "surface expression" appears outside of a wellbore as a result of injection operations. The regulations are consistent with the Public Resources Code and with the Division's mandate to promote health and safety. They are supported by substantial evidence that human life is endangered by the appearance of oil, water, steam, gas, formation solids or debris within 150 feet of a well. Vacated.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Snauffer, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: F085832, Categories: Administrative Law, Energy, Environment
J. Snauffer finds that the Public Employment Relations Board rightly determined that a school district fired a teacher in retaliation for her activities as a union officer. But the Board erred in finding that the school district had not successfully proved that the teacher nonetheless deserved to be fired. Her extensive misreporting of student attendance that predated her union activity presented potentially catastrophic liability to the school district's funding that supported termination.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Snauffer, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: F084032, Categories: Education, Employment, Labor / Unions
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Snauffer finds that the trial court erroneously dismissed as time-barred a childhood sexual assault complaint that lacked unredacted certificates of merit. The statute of limitations was tolled by an emergency rule enacted in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The individual has 95 days to refile the complaint with unredacted certificates of merit. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Snauffer, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: F086315, Categories: Civil Procedure, Covid-19, Assault
J. Snauffer finds that the Public Utilities Commission erred in imposing $2.7 million in penalties on several rural telephone companies and denying their petition for rehearing. The companies properly relied on a 2006 Commission decision that laid out the disclosure requirements for public utilities selling company assets. The Commission failed to provide the companies the fair notice required by due process of the disclosure requirements it cited in assessing the penalties.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Snauffer, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: F083940, Categories: Communications, Securities, Due Process