CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Jordan St. Onge challenges the denial of a pre-plea motion to suppress evidence found on his person and in his car following what he contends was an unlawful pat search. St. Onge also attacks certain probation conditions prohibiting possession of firearms, ammunition, and concealable weapons, and prohibiting use or possession of dangerous drugs, narcotics, and narcotics paraphernalia on the grounds that both conditions are unconstitutionally vague. We shall reverse the order denying his motion to suppress without reaching the remaining issues.

A jury convicted Stephanie Hamashin (appellant) of felony elder abuse likely to produce great bodily harm or death. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1).) The jury also found true an allegation that appellant proximately caused the death of the victim, appellant’s 86-year-old mother. (§ 368, subd. (b)(3).) Appellant was sentenced to a 10-year prison term. On appeal, she contends she was denied the effective assistance of counsel because her trial counsel failed to utilize properly evidence that she suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to prior abuse by her mother. Appellant also contends the trial court erroneously excluded evidence that her mother hated doctors. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Following a jury trial, defendant Michael Elijah Rodriguez was convicted of the first degree, premeditated murder of Julio Pantoja-Cuevas (Cuevas) and a gang-related special circumstance and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Defendant was 18 years 3 months and 9 days old on the day he killed Cuevas. On appeal and in a consolidated petition for a writ of habeas corpus, defendant asserts he was “a particularly immature eighteen year old” and, therefore, that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Samantha Lynn Vetter appeals from an order denying her application to redesignate her conviction for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) to a misdemeanor. Defendant contends that section 10851, subdivision (a) can be reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. She also contends that the exclusion of section 10851, subdivision (a) from Proposition 47 violates her right to equal protection. We affirm the order.

Following a jury trial, defendant C. Antioco Camacho Rodriguez was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse against his minor daughter E.R. and an additional count of dissuading a witness. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in excluding certain defense evidence relating to his abrupt departure from Redwood City to Mexico on the same day his daughter first reported the alleged sexual abuse. We disagree and affirm.

Appellant Bonnie Jean Shryock, formerly known as Bonnie Jean Maury, appeals from the partial denial of her petition for resentencing, filed pursuant to Proposition 47. Appellant contends the trial court wrongly placed the burden of demonstrating eligibility on appellant. Alternatively, appellant argues her conviction for second degree commercial burglary was eligible for relief, as it constituted shoplifting. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Defendant Jose Audel Cardenas allowed a non-resident acquaintance to grow marijuana on his property. Both defendant and his housemate had medical marijuana recommendations from a physician, but defendant failed to establish the marijuana grown on the property was for medical use. After a short court trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358), possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359), attempted transportation of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)), and maintaining a place for the purpose of selling, giving away, or using marijuana (§ 11366). The court placed defendant on probation for three years and imposed various fines and fees, including a single $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee with an attached $150 penalty assessment. (§ 11372.5.)

A jury convicted defendant Cesar Adolfo Caro of conspiracy to commit murder, count 1. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on count 2, attempted first degree murder, and the court declared a mistrial on count 2. Count 2 was later dismissed. The jury found a firearm enhancement not true. In bifurcated proceedings, the court sustained a strike prior for dissuading a witness.
Sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 50 years to life (25 years to life, doubled for the strike prior), defendant appeals. He contends the jury returned inconsistent verdicts, the verdicts indicated that the jury was confused in its deliberations, and the court erred in failing to grant a new trial on the ground of inconsistent verdicts and jury confusion. Defendant also contends defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in recommending that defendant not accept a plea offer of six years. We reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Alex Zsigmond pleaded no contest to burglary. After a restitution hearing, the trial court awarded $20,232 in direct victim restitution to the estate of the deceased victim pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4. Zsigmond contends the restitution order must be reversed because there was no identifiable victim of his crime and because the trial court misstated the name of the victim’s estate. We modify the judgment to correct the trial court’s clerical error, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

In 1995, Norma Esparza told her ex-boyfriend, defendant Gianni Anthony Van, that someone had raped her. Defendant, Esparza, and a group of people kidnapped Gonzalo Ramirez, the person Esparza later identified as the rapist. The following day, someone discovered Ramirez’s dead body just off the freeway. Santa Ana police arrested defendant for the murder. But at a preliminary hearing, just before Esparza was to testify against defendant, she disclosed that the couple had secretly married in Las Vegas and she invoked the marital privilege. The People dismissed the charges. Esparza later divorced defendant and moved out of the country. The case went cold for 17 years.
In 2012, Santa Ana police were notified that Esparza was on an international flight into Boston. The police went to Boston and arrested Esparza.

A jury convicted Dennis Edward Lam of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) under the theory he used force or fear to retain stolen property initially taken without force or fear. This theory of robbery was recognized in People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 27-28 (Estes) and is sometimes referred to as an Estes robbery.
On appeal, Lam contends we must reverse his robbery conviction because the Estes case was wrongly decided. He invites us to reexamine the case and criticize this theory of robbery. We decline the invitation as the California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the validity of this theory of robbery and the Supreme Court's decisions are binding on us. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (Auto Equity Sales).) We, therefore, affirm the judgment.

Johnny Martinez, Jr., entered a plea of no contest to one count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 4) and to dissuading a witness or victim from testifying (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 7). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the balance of the charges were dismissed with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758 [defendant may agree to the court's consideration of dismissed counts for sentencing purposes]). The court sentenced Martinez to a stipulated upper term of four years in prison for count 4. The court imposed an upper term sentence of three years for count 7, but stayed punishment for this count pursuant to section 654.

Defendant Ashlee Alexander Barnes appeals his conviction for receiving or possessing a stolen vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).) He contends there is insufficient evidence that he either possessed the stolen vehicle or knew it was stolen. We affirm the judgment.

In the early morning of February 22, 2015, defendant Danilo Hernandez Reyes forced entry into the home of his ex-girlfriend M.R. and threatened her with a knife. He was charged and convicted of first degree burglary, criminal threats, and violation of a court order. He was acquitted of the charge of assault with a deadly weapon.
Defendant argues on appeal that: (1) substantial evidence did not support a finding of his felonious intent at the moment of entry necessary for a burglary conviction; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by not excluding unduly prejudicial evidence of uncharged acts under Evidence Code section 352; (3) he received ineffective counsel because his attorney did not request a jury instruction on diminished actuality; and (4) the trial court should have stayed, under Penal Code section 654, the concurrent sentence for violation of the restraining order. We affirm but order his sentence for disobeying a court order stayed pursuant to section 654.