I think I understand the substance of the opinion. Under the relevant statute, which has been amended multiple times, "receiving" a high capacity gun magazine in California is a wobbler -- maybe a felony, maybe a misdemeanor -- as of January 1, 2014, but then in 2016 a different paragraph was added to the statute that says that "possession" of such a magazine is either a misdemeanor or infraction.
Defendant here gets convicted at trial of a felony. He clearly "possessed" the magazine, and the Attorney General says that if he possessed it, he obviously must have "received it" at some point as well, so he's guilty of the felony as well.
The Court of Appeal reverses. If I'm summarizing Justice Banke's opinion accurately, she says that it's true that he obviously must have received the thing at some point in order to possess it, but there's no evidence that he received it after January 1, 2014. (Before then, the statute only criminalized manufacturing or selling such things.) Since it's possible that he received it prior to 2014, and there was zero evidence at trial regarding when he did in fact receive the thing, there's insufficient evidence of the felony, so his conviction on that charge must be reversed.
Okay. That makes sense, I think. At least if I'm reading the opinion correctly.
But that left me thinking: "Well, I get that the trial court and the Attorney General might have been wrong about what the statute means. But was there really no evidence that the defendant got the magazine after 2014? That was 12 years ago, after all. Let's say the guy is 25 years old -- a classic age for offenders. Is it really likely that he received the high capacity magazine when he was a child? Or what if he was 20 years old? No way he got the thing when he was 8 years old, right?" So I wondered how old he was at the time.
I looked for the briefs. Couldn't find them. Then I looked at the appellate docket. That lists the defendant's date of birth as February 26, 1994. (See entry on September 6, 2024.) So he's 32 years old now. Maybe around 27 or 28 at the time of the offense? (The Court of Appeal's opinion gives pretty much zero facts about the actual offense, and consists pretty much entirely of statutory analysis, with no underlying statement of background facts.) So I guess it's possible that he "received" the magazine when he was 15 or 16. Though I strongly doubt it.
But then things got weird.
I noticed in the docket -- but not in the opinion -- that the defendant was sentenced to 2 years, 8 months in prison, and had 92 days of custody credits. That was back in February of 2024. With the usual credits for good conduct, that would typically mean that, by today, he would have already have served his sentence and been out of prison. Which in turn might well mean that today's opinion would technically be moot.
As I said, there's basically nothing in the opinion about the actual facts, and it doesn't even contain his sentence. So maybe it's moot? Maybe it's not?
So I go online to the CDCR website to find out whether he's still physically in prison. I enter his name and hit "submit". No results for the guy's name: "Robert Antoine-Deshawn Newt". There's not anyone even in prison with the last name "Newt" anywhere in California.
So I'm thinking: "Hey, in fact, the opinion might be moot. Maybe the Court of Appeal wants to drop a footnote about that? Maybe decide the appeal even though the guy's out of prison as a matter capable of repetition, or treat it as a writ?"
But I've nonetheless got a nagging feeling about this. There's an offhand half-sentence in the opinion that says that the defendant had "committed numerous crimes" at the time he was caught with the high capacity magazine, so I'm sort of suspicious that the guy's actually out of prison. Even when I see in the docket sheet that the Court of Appeal was itself expressly concerned about mootness, and sped up the briefing process (at least as contrasted with normal delay-ridden appeals) to try to make sure that the case was resolved before the guy's sentence was up.
So I see in the docket sheet that -- randomly -- they list the defendant's CDC number (BW7733) and that he's incarcerated (at the time) at the California Substance Abuse Facility in Cochran. So I run his CDC number, rather than his name, in the inmate locator website.
Bam. There's a hit. There's in fact someone still incarcerated with that number. At the exact same place, the California Substance Abuse Facility in Cochran. With the exact same admission date and age as the person listed in today's Court of Appeal opinion.
With one wrinkle. His name isn't Robert Antoine-Deshawn Newt. His name is instead listed as Robert Anthony Newton.
Now, that's pretty close. But it left me thinking: What's the guy's actual name? His last name is listed on the appellate caption and in the appellate docket at "Newt." Did that entry simply get truncated for some reason from "Newton" -- maybe they couldn't fit the last two letters somewhere? Or did the guy change his name at some point? From Newton to Newt?
No idea.
But this "Newton" guy is indeed still in prison. Indeed, for a long time. His first parole eligibility date is December 2051.
Anyway: Weird. Newton vs Newt. A massive bunny trail trying to figure out if the case is moot leading to serious confusion on -- at a minimum -- my end as to what his name actually is.
