CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Tyler Howland Willis appeals from a December 27, 2016 order issued by the superior court, after our remand, re-imposing a custody period of 180 days for a violation of his parole conditions. We affirm.
In October 2009, Willis was convicted of a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) He was released in March 2012, subject to parole supervision by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR), and required to wear a global positioning system (GPS) device.

An information charged defendant Clyde William Whitfield with the following crimes: attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); Count 1), assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); Counts 2 and 5), false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, § 236; Count 3), criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); Count 4), dissuading a witness by force or threat (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1); Count 6), unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Count 7), and vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); Counts 8 and 9). As to Count 2, the information alleged that defendant inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (e)). The information also alleged that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).

Defendant Marvin Milton Warren contends on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to designate his felony convictions for second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) as misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18). Since defendant filed his appeal, this issue has been resolved in his favor by People v. Gonzales (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858 (Gonzales). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Defendant Anthony Dewayne Scott drove the getaway car for an armed second degree robbery committed by another person. (Pen. Code, § 211.) A jury convicted defendant on two counts: 1) for aiding and abetting and 2) as an accessory after the fact. The court sentenced defendant to a determinate prison term of 11 years.
On appeal, defendant argues his conviction for accessory after the fact must be reversed because he cannot be convicted as a principal and accessory to the same crime. We agree with the parties that defendant’s one-year prison prior in case No. FSB804234 should be stricken not stayed. Subject to that modification, we affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Steven Lee Mortensen has 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.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant James Mejia appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 to reduce to a misdemeanor his felony conviction for attempting to receive a stolen vehicle. We affirm.

Elizabeth M. McAllister appeals from a judgment revoking her felony probation and sentencing her to the two-year middle term for the underlying offense of failing to appear under Penal Code section 1320, subdivision (b) , to be served locally pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h). Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.
Appellant entered her guilty plea in March 2015, in exchange for an initial grant of probation and the dismissal or reduction of charges pending in other cases. Probation was revoked and reinstated four times during the next year and a half, for violations including an arrest in a domestic violence case, failure to comply with substance abuse conditions, failures to appear, and positive tests for methamphetamine and opiates.

Defendant Pierre Lamont Matchem, an inmate in Twin Towers Correctional Facility, shattered glass windows in the jail’s shower. He appeals from his conviction for damaging jail property, contending the trial court committed prejudicial error and deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial by admitting foundationless, hearsay testimony about the replacement cost of the shattered glass.
We affirm the judgment.

Justino Estrada lay in wait and opened fire upon a group of pedestrians, killing one. Estrada challenges his convictions for first degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, and also alleges errors in his sentence and abstract of judgment. We remand the matter for resentencing but otherwise affirm.

William Maurice Dillon appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after he entered a negotiated plea of no contest. He contends the sentence he received in this case should run concurrently to a preexisting sentence in a prior case because the court did not adequately specify that the sentence was to run consecutively. (Pen. Code, § 669.) He further contends that his presentence custody credits should be recalculated. We will modify the judgment with respect to the custody credits and, as so modified, affirm the judgment.

The trial court denied defendant and appellant Gino Brunetti’s application to designate his prior felony conviction as a misdemeanor pursuant to the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, commonly known as Proposition 47. Brunetti’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. We affirm.

Defendant Victor S. Brown was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and false imprisonment by violence after he detained a female companion (the victim) in his home while holding a knife near her throat. On appeal, defendant asks us to review the in camera proceeding conducted by the trial court pursuant to his motion for discovery of personnel records under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). We conclude the court followed the proper procedure. Defendant also contends the jury was improperly instructed that assault is a general intent, rather than a specific intent, crime. We reject this argument because it is contrary to the view of the California Supreme Court as expressed in People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779 (Williams). Accordingly, we affirm.

The People appeal from an order granting defendant Phillip Pernell Bias’s petition under Penal Code section 1170.18, added by Proposition 47, to resentence his conviction for second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) as misdemeanor shoplifting (Pen. Code,
§ 459.5). The People argued defendant’s offense did not qualify for resentencing under Proposition 47 because (1) defendant entered a bank with the intent to commit felony identity theft, not larceny, and (2) a bank is not a commercial establishment for purposes of the new crime of shoplifting.

Appellant Anthony David Becerra (Becerra) was convicted in 2008 of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245) (count 1), making a criminal threat (§ 422) (count 3), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) (count 4) and possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)) (count 5). He was sentenced as follows: 25 years to life on count 1; 25 years to life on count 3; 25 years to life on count 4; and a term of six months on count 5. All of these terms were ordered to run consecutive to each other. In addition, he was sentenced to a term of 10 years pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivision (a) (use of a firearm) and a term of five years pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a) (prior serious felony conviction), both of which were ordered to run consecutive to each other and all counts. Finally, a one-year term was imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b) and stayed. The total sentence was 90 years to life.