CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant Rudy Joseph Ornelas guilty of attempted murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, along with enhancements for intentionally and personally discharging a firearm and personally using a firearm. The trial court sustained a strike and four prior prison term allegations and sentenced him to 45 years in state prison. We affirmed the conviction on appeal in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Ornelas (Feb. 14, 2012, C065884) [nonpub. opn.].)
Defendant’s argument at trial was that Claudio Magobet was the shooter. Magobet was originally charged as a codefendant but eventually testified as a prosecution witness as part of a plea agreement. Magobet testified that he gave defendant his own loaded handgun, which defendant used to shoot the victim.

Defendant and appellant, Antelope Valley Water Storage, LLC (Antelope Valley), challenges the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss the eminent domain complaint filed by plaintiff and respondent, Southern California Edison Company (SCE). According to Antelope Valley, SCE failed to bring the action to trial within five years as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. Antelope Valley further contends the trial court erred when it interpreted SCE’s easements over Antelope Valley’s property as being exclusive and giving SCE the right to restrict Antelope Valley’s use of the easement property.
The trial court did not err as claimed. Although not complete, a partial trial occurred before the statutory period expired and thus the trial commenced within the meaning of the statute. Further, the trial court correctly interpreted the easements to give SCE the power to limit or exclude Antelope Valley’s proposed use of the easements. Accordingly, the judgment

Appointed counsel for defendant Erineo Juan Gomez asked 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 sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On May 21, 2014, defendant was charged with four counts of committing a lewd act upon his stepdaughter, a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)).

Defendant Lonnie Ray Decker was convicted of transportation of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). On appeal, he contends the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury that the crime was a general intent crime. The People concede and we agree. Accordingly, we reverse.
On July 15, 2016, a jury found defendant guilty of transportation of a controlled substance for sale (§ 11352, subd. (a)) and not guilty of possession of a controlled substance for sale (§ 11351). Defendant admitted having suffered prior convictions. The trial court sentenced him to a total of 10 years in prison: the midterm of four years, doubled pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), plus two one-year prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

This matter involves cross-appeals from a trial court order granting and denying the parties’ motions for attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717. We reverse that part of the order awarding attorney fees to plaintiff and appellant William Russell Dougherty, and affirm the part denying attorney fees to defendant and appellant David S. Karton, a Law Corporation (hereafter Karton except as otherwise noted).

Defendants Robert Lewis Stevenson and Stojan Charles Mitich were part of a conspiracy to deposit a fraudulent check into Mitich's bank account and then withdraw most of that money within a few days. Stevenson appeals a judgment following jury verdicts convicting him of conspiracy to commit grand theft (count 1, Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)), unlawful use of personal identifying information of another (count 2, § 530.5, subd. (a)), second degree burglary (counts 3, 5-13, § 459), and grand theft of personal property valued in excess of $950 (count 4, § 487, subd. (a)). In his appeal, Stevenson contends: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions on counts 3, 4, and 5; (2) his sentences on either count 1 or counts 9, 12, and 13 must be stayed pursuant to section 654; (3) counts 3 through 13 must be consolidated into one offense pursuant to the Bailey doctrine; (4) several of the probation conditions imposed by the trial court are overbroad and should be stri

Travis Lee Bondurant and Gary Garrett were arrested for conspiring to sell or furnish a controlled substance (count 1, Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)) and for possessing a controlled substance in jail (count 2, § 4573.6). Prior to trial, Bondurant unsuccessfully moved to sever his trial from his codefendant's. The jury found Bondurant guilty of possession of a controlled substance in jail. Bondurant appeals, arguing the joint trial violated his constitutional rights to due process. We reject Bondurant's contention and affirm the judgment.

The court found Harvie Smith guilty of fraudulent appropriation by an employee (Pen. Code, § 508; count 1). The court stayed Smith's sentence pending successful completion of probation. On appeal, Smith contends the following probation conditions are unconstitutional: defendant shall obtain probation officer's (P.O.) consent before leaving San Diego County (condition 6l); defendant shall obtain P.O. approval as to residence (condition 10g); and defendant shall submit computers and recordable media to search at any time with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause, when required by P.O. or law enforcement officer (condition 6n). The attachment to condition 6n specifies "computers and electronic and wireless communication devices . . . including any form of written communication (email, text message, twitter, or similar), web browser history, or photographs" are subject to search. We conclude Smith forfeited his right to challenge the conditions

After defendant David Scott Byrket’s adult son called 911 to report defendant was behaving erratically, an incident occurred between defendant and Kern County Sheriff’s Deputy Geherty during transport to a mental health crisis clinic. As a result of the incident, defendant was charged with resisting an executive officer with force or violence, in violation of Penal Code section 69, and subsequently convicted following a trial by jury. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years, with the first 120 days to be served in jail as a condition of probation.

Appellant Joseph Anthony Lopez led police on two high-speed chases. On July 31, 2015, appellant was convicted of four charges: assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)) (count 1), two counts of evading a peace officer with wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) (counts 2 & 4), and evading a peace officer while driving in the opposite direction of traffic (Veh. Code, § 2800.4) (count 3). Counts 1 through 3 were for appellant’s actions taken during a chase on April 17, 2014, and count 4 was for appellant’s actions taken during a chase on March 22, 2014. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of five years eight months in state prison.

In an information filed in July 2011, defendant Jesse Lopez Rios (appellant) was charged with felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 1); misdemeanor tampering with an electrical line (§ 591; count 2); and misdemeanor receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 3). A jury convicted appellant on all three counts.
The court sentenced appellant on September 25, 2015. On count 1, the court sentenced appellant to an aggravated term of 3 years in county jail, with the last two years to be served under mandatory supervision (see § 1170, subd. (h)(5)(A).) On counts 2 and 3, the court sentenced appellant to time served. Appellant challenges several aspects of the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Camillo Bonome Jr., appeals the trial court’s denial of attorney fees from defendants and respondents City of Riverside (City) and Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, after the grant of Bonome’s petition for writ of mandate (Writ). Bonome sought the award of attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

Appointed counsel for defendant Roger Lee Valdez asked 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 sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On May 6, 2016, defendant was acting aggressively toward his longtime companion. Ultimately, he pushed her against the wall and punched her in the face, causing a laceration.

After receiving a notice of default stating he was behind on his mortgage payments, Gary Henriksen (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit for wrongful foreclosure and related claims. The defendants—banks and other entities —demurred, and the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. We affirm in part and reverse in part.