People v. Nazir CA2/7
B336437
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 20, 2025Background
- Rehan Nazir, a former police officer and licensed bail agent, was convicted in Los Angeles County on numerous charges related to his conduct as a bail agent, including kidnapping, false imprisonment, extortion, grand theft, and criminal threats.
- The convictions stemmed from incidents where Nazir, often accompanied by armed associates, detained bailees and others to collect unpaid bail premiums or collateral, sometimes using threats and physical restraint.
- The prosecution presented evidence that Nazir detained the victims without proper authority under bail contracts, used firearms, extorted money and property, and falsely claimed law enforcement status.
- At trial, Nazir contested the sufficiency of evidence on kidnapping, false imprisonment, and extortion charges, challenged jury instructions, and raised discovery and evidentiary arguments.
- The trial court sentenced Nazir to 27 years in prison, but denied his requests to dismiss firearm-related sentence enhancements under Penal Code Section 1385.
- Nazir appealed, raising multiple substantive, instructional, and procedural issues regarding his convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Nazir's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, Extortion | Claims victims consented under bail contracts; evidence insufficient for force/fear | Consent not established, facts show non-consensual detention, extortion by fear/threats | Convictions affirmed; sufficient evidence for each element |
| Jury Instruction on Withdrawal of Consent (CALCRIM 1215) | Consent in bail matters is irrevocable, instruction inappropriate | Instruction tracks law; consent can be withdrawn if not under legal authority | Issue forfeited, instruction proper and any error was harmless |
| Exclusion of Evidence (Restraining Order Against Victim) | Exclusion of prior restraining order against victim prejudiced defense/credibility | Old, collateral, minimally relevant, more prejudicial than probative | No abuse of discretion; any error harmless |
| Denial of Discovery Motion (Official Information) | Entitled to info re: public official allegedly threatened and DA involvement; Brady violation | No relevant or exculpatory information withheld; material protected/privileged | No abuse of discretion or Brady violation; discovery rulings affirmed |
| Sentencing Enhancement Dismissal (Penal Code § 1385) | Court failed to weigh mitigating factors and apply proper standard | Enhancements supported by facts, court’s decision proper | Sentencing vacated; trial court must reconsider motion under People v. Walker |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Majors, 33 Cal.4th 321 (Cal. 2004) (defining kidnapping standards for force/fear and consent)
- People v. Walker, 16 Cal.5th 1024 (Cal. 2024) (trial courts must give great weight to mitigating factors under Penal Code § 1385 when deciding whether to dismiss enhancements)
- People v. Alvarez, 246 Cal.App.4th 989 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (threat of arrest as force/fear in kidnapping; consent standards)
- People v. Sattiewhite, 59 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2014) (meaning of consent for kidnapping, must be free will)
- People v. Navarro, 12 Cal.5th 285 (Cal. 2021) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review on appeal)
- People v. Hin, 17 Cal.5th 401 (Cal. 2025) (discretion and standards for evidentiary rulings and jury instructions)