CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Eric Alan Cover’s first trial ended when the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on charges he had digitally penetrated and orally copulated 17-year-old A.B. Defendant’s second jury trial resulted in his conviction of oral copulation of a person under the age of 18 (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(1)) and oral copulation of an unconscious person (§ 288a, subd. (f)), and his acquittal of sexual penetration by foreign object of a person under the age of 18 (§ 289, subd. (h)) and sexual penetration by a foreign object of an unconscious person (§ 288a, subd. (f)). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve three years in prison for oral copulation of an unconscious person and a stayed 16-month term for oral copulation of a person under the age of 18. The trial court imposed various fines and fees and ordered defendant to pay victim restitution totaling $13,151.11.

Appellant Holly Elizabeth Condit pled no contest to one count of felony child abuse or endangerment (Pen. Code § 273a, subd. (a)) and one count of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing bodily injury (Veh. Code § 23153, subd. (a)). Condit was ordered to pay restitution of $23,666.36 to the victim. She challenges the trial court’s determination of $14,000 as the amount of restitution owed for the victim’s vehicle. We affirm, but will direct that a corrected abstract of judgment be prepared.

Ethen James Carrell appeals from the sentence imposed after he admitted he violated the terms of his probation. Appellate counsel failed to identify any arguable issue in the case. Carrell asserts he would not have admitted he violated his probation had he known he was statutorily ineligible for probation. We reject any claim based on Carrell’s assertion and affirm the judgment.

Andrew Michael Analla appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a negotiated plea of nolo contendre. Analla submits that, although accurately reflected in the clerk’s minutes and abstract of judgment, the terms of his plea agreement were not fully encompassed within the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. We modify the oral pronouncement of judgment to conform to the terms of the plea agreement and affirm the judgment as modified.

Two sisters were equal beneficiaries under their parents’ trust, the principal asset of which was the family home. The parents passed away, one sister became successor trustee, and by 2012, more than eleven years after the last surviving parent died, the trust assets still had not been finally distributed. Although the home has now been sold, for a number of years the sisters shared occupancy of it, agreeing it should remain in the trust while they wished to live there. Ultimately, their shared occupancy arrangement came to a fractious end. One sister, who has since passed away, locked the other one out, effectively ejecting her.

A jury convicted defendant Alonzo Deval Ward of second degree robbery for pushing a man to the ground and taking his personal property. Defendant contends the trial court impeded his ability to present a misidentification defense by refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction creating a presumption that a percipient witness not produced by the prosecution would have testified unfavorably to the prosecution. Because no evidence in the record indicates the prosecution knew of any percipient witnesses other than the two who testified at trial, we find no error in denying defendant’s request and will affirm the judgment.

In this appeal from defendant Robert Walker’s (defendant’s) conviction on multiple counts of human trafficking and other charged offenses, the issues we consider require us to discuss the meaning of the word “sex”; the admissibility of video evidence depicting defendant congregating with another individual identified as a pimp; whether defendant’s attorney was constitutionally ineffective by not seeking to exclude victim testimony as tainted by asserted governmental misconduct; and whether defendant can be found to have acted with separate objectives in sexually assaulting one of his victims and then forcing her to work for him as a prostitute.

Defendant and appellant, Kevin Paul Thompson, filed petitions for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 in two separate cases, Riverside County Superior Court case Nos. INF055588 and INF057293. The court granted both petitions in part and denied them in part.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying his request for resentencing in case No. INF057293 as to counts 1 and 3. Defendant additionally contends the court erred in neglecting to recalculate defendant’s custody credits when it reduced some of defendant’s convictions to misdemeanors. The People agree with the latter contention and note that the matter must be remanded so that the court can impose sentence on the counts it reduced to misdemeanors. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

Defendant Theodore Soria appeals following jury verdicts finding him guilty of rape of an unconscious person (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(4); count one) and rape of an intoxicated person (§ 261, subd. (a)(3); count two). Defendant admitted habitual criminal prior serious felony and strike conviction allegations (§§ 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). He was sentenced to a total aggregate term of 11 years. In sentencing defendant, the trial court imposed sentence on count two, but stayed execution of that sentence.

An information charged Resendiz with three counts of arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b)) (counts 1, 2, & 6) and three counts of arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d)) (counts 3, 4, & 5). At trial, the prosecution presented evidence on, inter alia, the arson of three inhabited structures (i.e., 5203 Landis Street, 5205 Landis Street, and 5290 Ogden Street).
At about 12:55 a.m. on March 31, 2015, Thien Minh Dang was watching television in his apartment at 5203 Landis Street when he heard his apartment window crack and saw flames outside. He went outside and saw two burning mattresses leaning up against the exterior wall of his apartment. His initial attempt to douse the mattresses with water was unsuccessful, so he pulled the mattresses away from the wall and into the apartment building's courtyard. He then used a water hose to put out the fire-engulfed mattresses. Dang also woke up his neighbor, Tien Minh Nguyen, informed him of the mattress fires, and asked hi

Appellant Donald Phillips appeals from the trial court’s order extending his civil commitment at Napa State Hospital under Penal Code section 1026.5 until April 30, 2018. Appellant first contends—and respondent agrees—that the court erred when it extended his commitment to April 30, rather than April 1, which was two years from the date his prior commitment extension was due to expire. He further contends the court improperly permitted three expert witnesses to testify to case-specific facts that were based on inadmissible hearsay; the court erred when it permitted a prosecution expert to testify about the procedure for early release from a state hospital; and the cumulative effect of these errors requires reversal. We shall modify the order extending appellant’s commitment such that it will expire on April 1, 2018, but shall otherwise affirm the trial court’s order extending appellant’s commitment for two years.

On July 23, 2014, defendant and appellant, Freddy Perezrodas, shot his wife, Laura Perez, three times, killing her, during what defendant later claimed was a heated argument in the upstairs bedroom of the couple’s Murrieta home. Defendant claimed he shot Laura in the heat of passion. He claimed they were arguing because Laura, a police officer, had been having an extramarital affair with another police officer, and Laura insulted defendant during the argument. Defendant also claimed he shot Laura in self-defense while she was retrieving a handgun from her purse to shoot him.

This is the second appeal in this case. (See People v. Oakley (Feb. 17, 2015, B248796) [nonpub. opn.]) (Oakley I).) In this appeal, appellant Perry Oakley takes issue with the trial court’s denial of a post–trial motion to vacate judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and appellant filed a supplemental brief.

Defendant and appellant Andrew Z. Molina was charged with carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a); count 1); robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 2); assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3); disobeying a court order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a); count 4); corporal injury to a spouse/roommate (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); counts 5 & 8); grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c); count 6); cruelty to a child by inflicting injury (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b); count 7); and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 9). As to count 8, it was further alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, §§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8) & 12022.7, subd. (e)).