CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Joey Carrillo (defendant), a member of the KAM criminal street gang, attacked two men with a crowbar, hitting both over the head and causing them to bleed heavily. A jury convicted defendant on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (but acquitted defendant of firearm possession charges brought in connection with a separate incident weeks before the crowbar attack). Defendant seeks reversal of his convictions, and failing that, reversal of five prior prison term enhancements the trial court imposed when pronouncing sentence. We consider whether there was substantial evidence at trial that defendant was the victims’ assailant; whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on defendant’s Pitchess motion and in excluding any inquiry at trial concerning purported police misconduct; and whether the prosecution engaged in misconduct during closing argument.

Defendants and appellants Raymond Sherman, Troy Hammock and Everett Allen were convicted of various crimes, including robbery, stemming from an after-hours takeover of a Nordstrom Rack during which 14 employees were held. Defendants appeal their convictions and contend, among other things, that the prosecutor committed misconduct by asking “were they lying” questions. Defendant Sherman, unlike the other defendants, was also convicted of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and aggravated kidnapping, and he raises several contentions regarding those convictions. We reject these and defendants’ other contentions regarding sentencing errors and affirm the judgment.

Petitioner C.C. is the mother of minor C.C., who was born in 2009. She seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s orders reducing her visitation, limiting her educational rights, and setting the case for a selection and implementation hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Mother also requests a stay of the hearing, currently set for September 19, 2017. We issued an order to show cause on July 17, 2017. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ contentions, we deny the petition for extraordinary relief on the merits and deny the request for stay.

Petitioner Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (the Department) issued a 45-day suspension of an on-sale general public premises license held by real party in interest BMGV, LLC, doing business as “Atmosphere” (BMGV). The discipline was imposed based on a sustained accusation that BMGV was maintaining its premises, known as Club Atmosphere, as a disorderly house (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 24200, subd. (b), 25601 ), and creating a law enforcement problem such that the continuation of the license would be contrary to public welfare or morals (Cal. Const., art. XX, § 22; § 24200, subd. (a).) Respondent Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (the Board) annulled the Department’s decision and recommended dismissal of the accusation on the ground of insufficient evidence. In light of its decision, the Board did not address BMGV’s additional argument that dismissal was warranted on the ground of selective or discriminatory prosecution or BMGV’s challenge to the imposed dis

Betty Hallmeyer appeals from a judgment and order denying her motion for a new trial, contending that the non-economic damages she was awarded by a jury in a personal injury action are inadequate. We will affirm.

A jury found defendant Kenneth Martin Silva guilty as charged of one count of first degree burglary, following which execution of sentence to state prison was suspended and defendant was admitted to probation upon specified conditions. The sole subject of this timely appeal, and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, is a suppression motion that was not made in the right place and at the right time. These are the salient details:

Thomas Patrick Davies subleased commercial property to Thicker Than Water, Inc. A dispute arose about the tenancy and in 2011, Thicker Than Water filed a lawsuit against Davies. In August 2015—after the trial date was set—Davies cross-complained against Rick and Darren Derita (collectively, Derita). Derita moved to strike the cross-complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50. The trial court granted the unopposed motion, and later granted Thicker Than Water’s unopposed request to dismiss its operative second amended complaint.

A jury found defendant Malik Charles Bailey guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and found true the allegation that a principal was armed in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). On appeal, Bailey contends he cannot be convicted of robbery based on the facts of the offense as a matter of law. He further contends the trial erred in instructing the jury.

Carlos Law appeals following a jury verdict concluding he was guilty of second degree robbery enhanced due to his use of a deadly weapon and prior serious felonies. He argues his conviction must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that he took the property of another through force or fear. We disagree, and affirm.

Defendant Jessy Zetino ingested drugs during a Halloween party and then stabbed a stranger to death on the street. The defense claimed the killing was not premeditated and deliberate but the result of drug-induced hallucinations. The jury rejected the defense and convicted defendant of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) He is serving an indeterminate prison term of 25 years to life plus an additional year for personal use of a knife. (Pen. Code, §§ 190, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).)
Defendant appeals, claiming his confession should have been excluded because the police coerced his confession through threats and promises of leniency and ignored invocations of his right to counsel and to remain silent. He also claims the court erred when instructing the jury on the effect of intoxication and hallucinations upon the elements of homicide. Finding no error, we shall affirm the judgment.

This case arises from a dispute among beneficiaries of a family trust. Plaintiff Dennis Heath appeals from a judgment for defendants after a court trial ruled his action was barred by the statute of limitations. As we understand his arguments, he contends he is entitled to assert his claims under the continuing violation or continuous accrual exception to the statute of limitations defense, or, alternatively, that the statutory period did not begin to run until his mother’s death, when he attained standing to challenge her will and trust. His contentions are meritless, so we affirm.

Appellant Michael Schoop appeals from a 16-year state prison sentence imposed following his plea of no contest to sodomy by means of force or violence in violation of Penal Code section 286, subdivision (c) and his admissions that the offenses occurred on separate occasions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d).
Schoop’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel declared Schoop was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende was being requested instead. Schoop also was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by Schoop personally.

A judgment debtor appeals from an order denying its motion to set aside a foreclosure sale of personal property to a judgment creditor. Notice of the sale was mailed late and to incorrect addresses, so that the sale occurred without the debtor’s knowledge. The judgment creditor contends the sale is absolute and may not be set aside despite the defects in notice. We conclude that a judgment debtor may set aside a sale to a judgment creditor “[i]f the sale was improper because of irregularities in the proceedings” and that the irregularities in notice warrant relief here. (Code Civ. Proc., § 701.680, subd. (c)(1).) We shall reverse the order denying the motion to set aside the sale.

E.P., Jr. (E.P.) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to his son, Eduardo P. III (Eduardo), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 E.P. contends that the evidence before the juvenile court was insufficient to support termination of his parental rights and that the court erred in sustaining the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency's (Agency) objections to questions posed to
eight-year-old Eduardo about his understanding of adoption. We conclude E.P.'s contentions lack merit and affirm the juvenile court's order.