CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant and appellant Leroy Roberts guilty of first degree residential burglary. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it would not permit defense counsel to discuss three well-publicized cases of police shootings of African-American males and instructed the jury to disregard counsel’s comments about those unrelated cases.
We find no abuse of discretion in limiting the argument of counsel because the trial court allowed counsel to nevertheless make the central point of that argument without further specific reference to the three cases. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

Defendant Justin Morley Pullman was convicted of manufacturing a form of concentrated cannabis known as butane honey oil. He challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence and quash a search warrant, and he claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to produce evidence of the seized property at the suppression hearing. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.

Willie Lee Myers and two of his brothers were charged with six counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 ; counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7) and one count of attempted robbery (§ § 664, 211; count 5). Myers was also charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 11). Two of Myers's robbery charges and the attempted robbery charge included allegations that he personally used a handgun (§ 12022.5, subd. (a); counts 1, 5 & 6) and the other four robbery charges (counts 2, 3, 4 & 7) included allegations that Myers was vicariously armed with a handgun (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Before trial, Myers pleaded guilty to all charges and allegations.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Luis Mendez entered a no contest plea to assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 4) and admitted the gang allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)) and the allegations that he had suffered a strike under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
After entry of his plea, defendant submitted an unsigned letter seeking withdrawal of his plea. The trial court noted the letter was not made under penalty of perjury and was “not in the form of a motion.” Defendant argued his plea had been induced by the prosecutor’s threat to add a new charge under section 246, plus a gang allegation, increasing his possible sentence by 15 years to life. The court explained this was simply an advisement of his potential punishment exposure and noted his codefendant had been acquitted in the interim. The court denied defendant’s request for lack

A jury convicted Eric Lopez of 31 counts arising from a crime spree in the fall of 2014, among them five counts of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a); counts 1–2, 7, 18–19), seven counts of robbery (§ 211; counts 3–4, 9, 20–21, 24–25), six counts of assault with a semiautomatic weapon (§ 245, subd. (b); counts 5–6, 10–11, 26–27), and two counts of kidnapping (§ 209, subd. (b)(1); counts 22–23). The jury further found true allegations that appellant was vicariously armed with a firearm in the commission of counts 1–7, 10–11, 18-30, and 33–35, and personally used a firearm in the commission of count 7. The court sentenced Lopez to 62 years, plus two consecutive life terms for the kidnapping counts. Pursuant to section 654, the court imposed but stayed punishment on counts 2 (full midterm), 19 (one-third midterm), and 34 (full midterm). The court also imposed, but stayed, the one-year vicarious firearm enhancement term on counts 2, 5–6, 10–11, 19,

Defendant and appellant Andre Johnson, Jr. raises a claim of sentencing error following his conviction of selling methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine for sale, with prior drug offense, prior prison term, and prior serious felony conviction enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11359, 11358, 11370.2; Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
For the reasons discussed below, the judgment is affirmed; however, the court should address an apparent error in the abstract of judgment.

Defendant and appellant Andre Johnson, Jr. raises a claim of sentencing error following his conviction of selling methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine for sale, with prior drug offense, prior prison term, and prior serious felony conviction enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11359, 11358, 11370.2; Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
For the reasons discussed below, the judgment is affirmed; however, the court should address an apparent error in the abstract of judgment.

In this difficult case involving clearly deviant behavior by defendant Russell Kay Hunt who was convicted of stalking a female victim, we must determine whether evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant committed the crime as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. We conclude the finding is not supported by the record, and without it, the order imposing a lifetime sex offender registration requirement must be reversed.

Defendant Kenneth Arthur Hogle seeks appellate review of a judgment and orders sentencing him to three years in prison. His appeal arises from three separate criminal complaints. In the first case, case No. B1582545, defendant pleaded no contest on December 15, 2015 to selling or offering to sell methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), based on his offer to sell methamphetamine to an undercover police officer on September 17, 2015. In exchange for his plea, he would receive a maximum sentence of one year in county jail.

A jury convicted defendant Andre Lashawn Delgado of two counts of robbery and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm in connection with two robberies at the Aquamaids Bingo Hall in Santa Clara in early 2014. The jury found true allegations that defendant was personally armed with a firearm in the commission of both robberies and knew or should have known that the victim of one robbery was 65 years of age or older. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 10 years and 4 months in prison.

William Grant Crooks, a person found not guilty by reason of insanity, appeals an order following a jury trial extending for two years his commitment to Patton State Hospital (Patton) pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b). Crooks contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish his mental illness resulted in serious volitional impairment or would cause him to be a current danger to others if released because the People's experts relied upon, and related to the jury, inadmissible hearsay evidence and (2) the court erred in responding to a jury question about the requirement that Crooks "now" poses a substantial danger. We conclude Crooks forfeited his evidentiary challenge by failing to object to the experts' opinions at the time they were rendered and we further conclude there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding. We also conclude the court responded to the jury's inquiry with a proper statement of the law. We aff

A jury convicted Gilberto Ortiz Cardenas of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a); all statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless noted). Cardenas contends the prosecutor committed Griffin error (Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 (Griffin)), the trial court erred in excluding as hearsay Cardenas’s statements to the victims at the scene of the alleged burglary explaining why he was in their garage, and the court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial based on a police officer’s testimony he recognized Cardenas because of 30 to 40 prior meetings. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Christopher Andrew Campero was charged by felony complaint with two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, counts 1 & 2) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 3). The complaint also alleged that defendant committed counts 1 and 2 for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and intentionally discharged a firearm and caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Defendant pled not guilty to all charges. A trial court denied his oral request under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 to appoint substitute counsel. Defendant subsequently entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to all three counts and admitted the gang enhancement. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).)

Plaintiffs Masazumi Inoue and Mie Inoue appeal after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendants Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Bayview), E*Trade Financial Corporation (E*Trade), Seaside Trustee Inc. (Seaside), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), and dismissed the action. We shall affirm the judgment.