CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Leo Sweeney appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition, filed January 8, 2015, for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. As of the uncontested hearing held on December 30, 2016, defendant failed to file an amended petition, as allowed by this court, showing that the property he was convicted of receiving did not exceed $950 in value. (People v. Sweeney (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 295.) We affirm.

Aladdin Bail Bonds, as agent for Seaview Insurance Company (Seaview) appeals from the trial court’s order denying its motion to vacate a bail forfeiture and exonerate its bail bond. Seaview issued a bail bond for Ignacio Mendez, who then apparently fled to Mexico. Seaview argues the trial court abused its discretion because the opposition filed by the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office (the County) did not provide sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that it was not feasible to extradite Mendez from Mexico. The only evidence submitted by the County was the declaration of an investigator from the district attorney’s office. Seaview argues the trial court erred in relying on the opinions expressed in the declaration because the declarant was not qualified to express an opinion, and because there was an insufficient factual basis for the opinions rendered.

Defendant Santino Rodriguez pleaded no contest to possessing a large-capacity magazine, a felony, and the trial court placed him on probation for three years. On appeal, he contends that four of his probation conditions that involve his use of electronic devices are unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), unconstitutionally overbroad, and, in one instance, unconstitutionally vague. He also contends that the order granting probation must be modified to reflect the trial court’s promise that he could seek to reduce his offense to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b)(3) (section 17(b)(3)) after successfully completing two years of probation.

Defendant Sandra Madrigal Ramirez (defendant) filed an application to have her 2002 felony conviction for receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and her 2003 felony convictions for second degree commercial burglary (§ 459) and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) redesignated as misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18, subd. (f)). The trial court granted the application as to the drug conviction, but declined to redesignate the receiving stolen property and second degree commercial burglary convictions as misdemeanors.
In our original opinion filed December 17, 2015, we reversed the trial court’s judgment denying redesignation of the receiving stolen property conviction and affirmed the court’s judgment denying redesignation of the second degree commercial burglary conviction.

Appellant Michelle Andrea Melikian appeals the denial of her petition for reclassification of a prior felony conviction for second degree burglary to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47). The California Supreme Court recently determined that the definition of shoplifting under Proposition 47 includes nonlarcenous thefts. (People v. Gonzales (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 862.) Therefore, we reverse and remand.

A jury found defendant Johnathan Issac Mendivil guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and misdemeanor child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the commission of the murder. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 40 years to life in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 3472 (one may not invoke self-defense if he provoked a fight or quarrel as an excuse to use force) because the instruction prevented the jury from considering the defenses of perfect and imperfect defense of another. We affirm the judgment.

Nicolas Martinez (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count I), grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2); count II), possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a violent crime (§ 29900, subd. (a); count III), and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count IV). Following a bifurcated court trial, he was found to have suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) and four prior strike convictions (id., subd. (d)). Sentenced to a total of 60 years to life in prison and ordered to pay various fees, fines, and assessments, he now appeals, claiming the trial court erred by refusing to give a modified jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. We affirm.

On November 4, 2014, the voters approved Proposition 47, The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47); it went into effect the following day. Proposition 47 reduced certain nonserious, nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors. It added and amended sections of the Penal Code. Penal Code section 1170.18 was added and provides that a person currently serving a sentence for a felony conviction, whether by trial or plea, who would have been guilty only of a misdemeanor had Proposition 47 been in effect at the time the plea was entered, or at the time of trial, may petition for a recall of the sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing.
In 1999, prior to the passage of Proposition 47, defendant and appellant Lake Jordan pled guilty to a felony violation of former Vehicle Code section 10851.

Scott Leon Franks appeals following his guilty plea to a single count of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.

Defendant Jose Manuel Fajardo was charged with the murder of his wife Marlene Rubi Sosa Fajardo (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that he acted intentionally, deliberately, and with premeditation (see § 189) and personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder and found true the deadly weapon allegation. Defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life plus one year for personal use of a deadly weapon.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erroneously sustained the prosecutor’s objections to certain cross-examination questions posed by defense counsel to the forensic pathologist. For the reasons set forth below, we find the court’s conduct did not amount to prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.

Danny Fabricant (defendant) filed three petitions under Proposition 47, Penal Code section 1170.18, to redesignate as misdemeanors four theft-related and one ostensibly theft-related felony convictions he suffered in 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1978. The trial court denied all three petitions. We affirm those denials, but do so without prejudice to defendant filing new petitions supported by evidence that the items taken in those prior cases were worth less than $950.

One member of a gang’s clique gunned down another member of the clique, and was aided by two others. A few days later, they called the victim’s friend to take credit for the killing and to threaten him. Then two of them committed two armed robberies. All three were convicted of murder, two were convicted of robbery, and one was convicted of making criminal threats. All of them appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to several counts, arguing that the trial court erred in instructing the jury and admitting certain items of evidence, asserting that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and contending that the trial court made several sentencing errors.

Defendant Steven Dunsmore appeals from a conviction, following a no contest plea, of being an accessory to a felony (Pen. Code, § 32) and a convicted felon having a concealed firearm in a vehicle (a misdemeanor violation of § 25400, subd. (a)(1)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation. His appellate counsel has raised no issues, but notes the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress, and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgement. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Michael Closs was charged with two counts of annoying or molesting a child under 18 years of age (Pen. Code, § 647.6, subd. (c)(2)), inter alia. In connection with both counts, the information alleged he was previously convicted of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14 years of age, a qualifying “strike” offense (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)), inter alia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, which was denied. Thereafter, he pled no contest to one count of annoying or molesting a child under 18 years of age and admitted the prior conviction. In exchange, the remaining charges were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to eight years.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree and affirm the judgment.