CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Ruben Scott pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378, and admitted a prior conviction under the Three Strikes Law. He was sentenced to 32 months in state prison.
Defendant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying his joint motion to unseal, quash, and traverse a search warrant of his home, and by failing to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. We affirm.

Defendant Charles Patterson pleaded guilty to one felony count of possession of metal knuckles and was placed on probation for three years. On appeal, his sole claim is that his motion to suppress the metal knuckles was wrongly denied because they were obtained as the result of an unlawful detention. We need not decide whether the detention was unlawful, however, because even if it was, the motion was properly denied. The officer’s discovery that Patterson was subject to a probation search condition was an intervening circumstance attenuating the taint of any Fourth Amendment violation that would otherwise justify suppression of the evidence under the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we affirm.

Appellant Joseph A. Ortiz was tried before a jury and convicted of multiple felony and misdemeanor sexual offenses against minors whom he had befriended. He argues that the judgment must be reversed in its entirety because (1) trial court abused its discretion in admitting a “massive” amount of evidence about his foot fetish for the purpose of proving his sexual intent; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of other uncharged bad acts; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during the questioning of witnesses and in closing argument. In response to our request for supplemental briefing, appellant acknowledges the case must be remanded for resentencing because the trial court imposed determinate sentences for counts on which allegations under the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61) had been found true, and for which indeterminate sentences were required. Appellant also argues the conviction as to one count must be reversed due to insufficient evi

Defendant and appellant Julius Caesar Mathis (defendant) appeals from an order denying his application to reduce his 1988 felony conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. Defendant contends that the conviction was for theft, and the trial court erred in finding the offense ineligible for relief. We conclude the conviction was not for theft, but for forgery of an access card in violation of former Penal Code section 484f, subdivision (2), which is ineligible for reduction to a misdemeanor. We thus find no error, and affirm the order.

In 2013, the police stopped defendant while he was driving a Honda Civic that had been stolen about a week earlier. He was in possession of two non-Honda keys; the ignition had been tampered with so as to permit these keys to be used to start it.
In 2015, in a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated proceeding, after defendant waived a jury trial, the trial court found true one prior vehicle theft-related felony conviction allegation, (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)), one strike prior (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and four prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to a total of ten years in prison, along with the usual fines, fees, and miscellaneous sentencing orders.

Following a jury trial, defendant Christopher Johnson was convicted of one count of robbery, and the jury found that defendant personally used a knife in the commission of the crime. Evidence at trial included surveillance video showing three suspects committing a robbery at a Travelodge hotel, and a police officer’s lay opinion testimony that one suspect in the video looked similar to defendant. Defendant contends the officer’s testimony should have been excluded.
We affirm. The officer’s lay opinion testimony met the standards for admissibility, and even if it were erroneously admitted, any error was harmless.

Defendant Paul Daniel Hurtado appeals after the trial court denied his Proposition 47 petition for resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)) as to four forgery convictions (§ 470, subd. (d)) he suffered in 2003. The trial court found that defendant was disqualified from Proposition 47 relief because he has a prior conviction of first degree residential burglary for which he received an indeterminate life sentence under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court relied on section 1170.18, subdivision (i), which precludes resentencing for a person with one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv). The specified disqualifying offenses include “[a]ny serious and/or violent felony offense punishable in California by life imprisonment or death.” (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv)(VIII).)

Defendant Kenneth Lee Hinesley pled no contest, pursuant to West, to one count of lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14. Following his plea, he moved unsuccessfully to withdraw his plea. Later, after obtaining new counsel, he again moved unsuccessfully to withdraw his plea. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying both motions. We affirm.

Defendant Christian Daniel Herrera appeals from judgment entered after he pled guilty and was convicted of two counts of unlawful contact and communication with a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3, subd. (a) ). The trial court denied defendant’s Hofsheier motion challenging sex offender registration under section 290. The court also denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective representation. Defendant was granted 36 months probation and was committed to 180 days in custody, to be served in a work release program.

Richard A. Clements appeals an order committing him to the California Department of Mental Health (now State Department of State Hospitals) for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.) Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove he meets the fourth MDO criterion, i.e., that his severe mental disorder (a neurocognitive disorder) was not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment. (§ 2962, subd. (a)(1).) We affirm.

Appellant Gonzalo Carbajal was convicted of committing lewd acts against Brianna L. while she was under the age of 14. On appeal, he contends: 1) The police violated his right against self-incrimination; 2) the trial court erred in ruling on the admissibility of certain impeachment evidence; 3) his attorney was ineffective; 4) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding Brianna was less than 14 years old at the time of the alleged offenses; and 5) the trial court erred in imposing the upper sentence on his principal term. Finding these contentions unmeritorious, we affirm the judgment.

Marquice William Bruce appeals the judgment entered following the termination of his probation. After a jury had acquitted appellant of the charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 29900, subd. (a)(1)) in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number TA138514, the trial court found him to be in violation of probation in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number TA137343. The trial court terminated probation and sentenced appellant to the upper term of five years in state prison in case number TA137343. Appellant received 512 days of precommitment custody credit, including 256 days of actual custody and 256 days of conduct credit.
Appellant timely appealed the judgment, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Appellant filed his own supplemental brief, in propria persona.

Javar Blueford entered into a plea agreement. Under that agreement Blueford pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) as a lesser included offense of murder. Blueford also admitted the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of 12 years in prison. Blueford was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
Blueford filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)

M.G. (Mother) and R.M. (Father) appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights over their child Ruben M. (Minor) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother and Father contend the juvenile court erred when it determined the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California statutes did not apply despite Father’s claim of Apache heritage. The parents, along with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and Minor, have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to allow compliance with ICWA and related California provisions. We accept the parties’ stipulation.