CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Francis Martin Palacio has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and 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 (Wende).) We shall order the correction of some errors in the abstract of judgment and affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of this appeal after a remand for resentencing. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
A jury convicted defendant of several sexual offenses and the trial court sentenced defendant to serve a state prison term of 90 years to life. Defendant appealed, raising several issues, and this court remanded for resentencing, concluding only “one of the counts of sexual penetration or rape should have been imposed consecutively to the oral copulation and kidnapping for purposes of rape while the remaining counts of sexual penetrati

Appointed counsel for defendant Travis Lee Hogan has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we found 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 facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On August 21, 2016, around 11:05 p.m., police were dispatched to a residence because defendant was creating a disturbance and refusing to leave. Officers contacted defendant outside the residence, where he explained he was going through a divorce and wanted to stay at his mother’s house. His mother, however, had refused to let him stay and called the police.

Robert Zamora appeals a post-judgment order concerning a suspended $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.45.) We modify the judgment to strike the fine.

This is the companion appeal to O’Reilly v. Nelson, 2d Civil No. B266392. Both cases were tried together. The opinions in both cases are being filed concurrently.
Eric Bjorklund, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Glen Nelson, Trustee of the Toomey Family Children’s Trust-Jet Investment Company (“the Trust”). The judgment requires appellant to pay the Trust $250,000 in damages on Nelson’s causes of action for trespass and negligence. The causes of action were primarily based on appellant’s unauthorized construction of an illegal road and the removal of trees on property owned by the Trust. Appellant also appeals from a judgment entered against him on his cross-complaint for fraud and breach of contract against Nelson, Olaf Lange, and Arthur Ober.

Defendant Glen Nelson, Trustee of the Jet Investment Trust dated 11/1/1984 (“the Trust”), and intervener Eric Bjorklund appeal from a judgment following a jury trial. The judgment was entered in favor of Bjorklund and respondent Kelsey O’Reilly. Nelson also appeals from the trial court’s orders granting a partial new trial on punitive damages and denying his motion for judgment on the punitive damages issue notwithstanding the verdict.
Before the jury trial began, the court tried the issue of whether property owned by the Trust was subject to a road easement in favor of property owned by Bjorklund and O’Reilly. Nelson contends that the trial court erroneously found such an easement.

A jury convicted defendant Antonio Miranda Martinez of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 25 years to life for the murder and the firearm allegation.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss because the prosecution had dismissed two prior complaints involving the same charges (§ 1387, subd. (a)) and neither of those dismissals was “due solely to excusable neglect” (§ 1387.1, subd. (a)). Defendant also contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury on lying in wait as a theory of first degree murder, and he challenges CALCRIM No. 521, the lying-in-wait instruction. For reasons that we shall explain, we will affirm the judgment.

A felony complaint, filed on April 4, 2014, charged defendant Tyler Joseph Ramos with one count of possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)). On January 7, 2015, defendant pleaded no contest to that charge.
At the sentencing hearing on March 13, 2015, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years. The trial court imposed various terms and conditions of probation.

Defendant Christopher Bermudez Herrera fired multiple gunshots from a moving vehicle at two pedestrians on a highway overpass. One of the pedestrians was struck and killed. A jury found Herrera guilty of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) The jury also made true findings on firearm and gang allegations. The trial court imposed a total term of 50 years to life.
Herrera contends the trial court erred by admitting testimonial hearsay in violation of his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. We conclude Herrera suffered no prejudicial error in this regard.

A complaint, filed on October 29, 2013, charged defendant Hugo Cortes Guzman with four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than defendant (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c); counts 1-4), two counts of oral copulation with a minor (§ 288a, subd. (b)(1); counts 5-6), and one count of sexual penetration of a person under the age of 18 (§ 289, subd. (h); count 7). On May 12, 2014, defendant pleaded guilty to all seven counts.
At the sentencing hearing on October 17, 2014, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years. The trial court imposed various terms and conditions of probation.

This case arises out of disciplinary action taken by the City of Westminster (City) against a civilian police dispatch employee, Teresa Furman. After being terminated by the City for violation of three police department policies, Furman sought judicial review of the City’s findings and actions.
The trial court affirmed the City’s factual findings concerning policy violations, including a finding that Furman gave false or misleading statements during an internal affairs investigation, but held termination was a “grossly excessive” penalty.
The City appeals the latter determination, arguing the trial court erred in finding the City abused its discretion when it deemed termination appropriate. We agree. Because reasonable minds might, at best, differ as to the propriety of the penalty under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion and uphold the City’s actions.

Gilberto Jesus Pena (Pena) appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of assault with a firearm, one count of active participation in a criminal street gang, and numerous enhancements. The criminal complaint also included allegations against his brother Juan Pena (Juan) and a friend, Pablo Hernandez (Pablo). However, Juan’s case was tried separately and before Pena’s trial. A jury convicted Juan of attempted murder and street terrorism and found true numerous enhancements, including that he committed the attempted murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang. In 2015, we considered Juan’s appeal and reversed the street terrorism conviction and the jury’s finding on the street terrorism enhancement, remanding the matter for resentencing. (People v. Pena (Nov. 12, 2015, G049885) [nonpub. opn.] (Pena I).) We grant Pena’s motion to take judicial notice of that decision. (Evid. Code, § 459, subd. (a).)

Dr. Nili N. Alai and her husband Sam Nabili (plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court’s order denying their motion to disqualify defendant Dr. Barbara Ya-Hui Shang’s attorneys, the law firm of Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McKenna & Peabody, including Benjamin Ikuta, from further participation in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs sued Shang for medical malpractice and loss of consortium after Alai allegedly contracted an eye infection following an ophthalmology appointment with Shang.

Jesse D. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights over his child, Jesse, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He argues the juvenile court erred when it found the beneficial parent-child relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply. We reject father’s claim and affirm.

Patricia Veronica Pinckney (defendant) appeals from an order revoking probation following a judgment of conviction based upon her plea of nolo contendere and a suspension of the execution of the prison sentence. Defendant, who admitted that she violated the conditions of probation, contends that the trial court’s decision amounted to an abuse of discretion. We reject this contention and affirm the order.
Defendant and Rebecca Lynn Reagan were jointly charged with first-degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459 [count I]) and receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a) [count II]). The information further alleged that defendant served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On September 9, 2014, before Judge Thomas D. Zeff, and pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled nolo contendere to count I. She agreed to be sentenced without a formal probation report. The trial court imposed, but suspended execution of, a six-year sentence.