CA Unpub Decisions

On June 3, 2016, defendant and appellant Trason Andreas Walker pled guilty to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4), with an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision (a). On the same day, defendant also admitted (1) having a prior strike conviction pursuant to sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1); and (2) having served one prior term in prison under section 667.5, subdivision (b). On July 6, 2016, defendant was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and his admissions of the prior strike conviction and prison term.

On November 1, 2016, an information charged defendant and appellant Robert Blair with first degree burglary under Penal Code 459 (count 1); theft or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 2); second degree burglary under Penal Code section 459 (count 3); receiving a stolen motor vehicle under Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a) (count 4); and trespassing under Penal Code section 602, subdivision (m) (count 5). The information also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior felony convictions under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) and Health and Safety Code section 113796.6, subdivision (a).

Defendant and appellant E.G. (minor) was a documented gang member and runaway. He behaved violently, smoked marijuana, drank alcohol, and refused to follow his parents’ rules. After he robbed a youth and admitted to committing grand theft of a person, minor was placed on probation in the custody of his parents. However, following minor’s continued out-of-control behavior, the juvenile court ordered minor placed outside of his home. On appeal, minor argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered foster care placement because minor did not have sufficient time with the initial home placement and less restrictive means of rehabilitation were not implemented before out-of-home placement. We find no abuse, and affirm the judgment.

In June 2014, defendant and appellant Kenya Kenyetta Holt had been dating Jaquline for approximately two months. One night, he met up with Jaquline and her two sisters, Jane Doe and Eva, at the Eagle’s Nest Bar at the Pechanga Casino. After having several drinks, they all ended up at defendant’s house. Eva was with defendant’s cousin the entire night. Doe was feeling sick and tired from drinking alcohol and fell asleep in a bedroom. In the middle of the night, she felt someone on top her. The person put his hand over her mouth, penetrated her vagina with his penis and then left. Doe lay on the bed frozen in shock until Jaquline told her it was time to leave. Once Eva, Jaquline and Doe were in the car, Doe started crying and told them she had been raped. Defendant’s DNA matched semen found on Doe’s vagina after a sexual assault exam.

A jury found defendant and appellant Guillermo Antonio Martinez, guilty of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 664), and two counts of robbery (§ 211). The jury found true the allegations that (1) defendant personally used a firearm during the attempted murder and one count of robbery (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); (2) defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the attempted murder and one count of robbery (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)); (3) defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury during the attempted murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); and (4) defendant personally used a firearm during one count of robbery (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for a determinate term of 10 years and a consecutive indeterminate term of 40 years to life.

Defendant Eddie Gabriel Caldera and his cohort each threw a full two-liter bottle of soda at a Circle K employee after defendant’s EBT card was declined. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a soda bottle, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted he had suffered three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 11 years in state prison (the middle term of three years, doubled to six years due to the prior strike conviction, plus an additional five years for the prior serious felony conviction) to run concurrent to a six-year sentence in an unrelated felony case. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. We disagre

Angel M. appeals the juvenile court's dispositional order declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placing him on probation after the court sustained allegations that he committed petty theft. (Pen. Code, § 484.) Angel's sole contention is that the juvenile court abused its discretion by imposing a probation condition prohibiting him from contacting one of his co-offenders, and denying without explanation his request that the condition prohibit "negative contact" with that co-offender.

Autumn Marie Barnes received fraudulent checks in amounts totaling more than $950, and subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft of personal property in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a). The superior court sentenced Barnes to formal probation for a term of five years, and imposed various terms and conditions of probation. Among others, the court required Barnes to (1) submit to warrantless searches of her person, vehicle, residence, property, personal effects, computers and recordable media (the Fourth Amendment waiver); (2) attend and successfully complete anti-theft and cognitive behavioral counseling if directed by her probation officers (the counseling condition); and (3) obtain her probation officer's consent before leaving San Diego County or moving out of state (the travel condition).

Appointed counsel for defendant Andrew David Acklin, Jr., asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We modify the judgment to strike the unauthorized fine imposed under Penal Code section 672 and all surcharges, fees, and assessments generated thereby, and otherwise affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jack Ryan Johnstone asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

On August 12, 2015, defendant Kipp Ray Ford resolved several cases brought against him by entering a negotiated plea. In case No. CM042740 (case 740), defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to writing a check greater than $950 with insufficient funds in his account (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (a); unless otherwise set forth statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code; count 2) and admitted an on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1) in exchange for dismissal of count 1 (check forgery), with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey). In case No. CM043235 (case 235), defendant pleaded no contest to stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (b); count 1) and admitted an on-bail enhancement.

Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and admitted three prior convictions within 10 years along with a prior strike allegation. After denying defendant’s post-plea Marsden motion, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of two years eight months in prison.

K.W. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating his parental rights to his four children, K’na M. (born June 2009), Kav. M. (born July 2011), K’on M. (born August 2012), and Kel. M. (born September 2014). Father, who was not an offending parent and who was incarcerated in Arizona throughout the duration of the underlying proceedings, contends the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights for the following reasons: (1) the court failed to consider whether Arizona was the children’s home state for jurisdictional purposes under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); (2) the court never made a finding that it would be detrimental to return the children to father’s custody before terminating father’s parental rights; and (3) the court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) when it never inquired into whether father had American Indian ancestry.

The underlying consolidated action against the City of Los Angeles (City) for personal injury and wrongful death damages arises out of an incident during which an individual drove his car onto Ocean Front Walk, popularly known as the Venice Beach Boardwalk (Boardwalk), and intentionally ran into 17 pedestrians. The City sought summary judgment in two of the lawsuits, claiming, among other things, that it was immune from liability for the plaintiffs’ injuries because the Boardwalk is a recreational trail under Government Code section 831.4, the so-called “trail immunity” statute. The trial court denied the City’s motion, finding a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the Boardwalk is a recreational trail because there are commercial businesses along that pathway.