CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Juvenal Angel Reyes was sentenced to a term of life in prison without parole after a jury found him guilty of burglary, as well as of kidnapping to extort and to rob, torture, assault with a deadly weapon, criminal threats, robbery of an inhabited place committed in concert, and grand theft person. It began when Reyes remarked to three day laborers that the neighbor, Gary Wise, was rich. The group discussed a plan to burglarize Wise’s house while he was out. Reyes was not present during the burglary when his coparticipants changed the plan and ambushed Wise, then beat and tortured him for the codes to his safes. The jury was instructed that if it found Reyes guilty of the burglary as a coconspirator or as an aider and abettor, it could find him guilty of the other charges under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

The District Attorney of San Bernardino County charged defendant Manuel Perez with one felony count of operating a chop shop (Veh. Code, § 10801) and one felony count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). Perez pled guilty to the receiving stolen property count in return for dismissal of the chop shop count.
After the voters passed the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act (Proposition 47), Perez filed an application to redesignate his conviction a misdemeanor under new Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f). The application held no information about the stolen property. The People opposed because the “stolen car was worth more than $950,” and the trial court set a hearing.

Defendant Shawn Philip Pakes appeals after a jury convicted him of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)), four counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child (§ 288, subd. (a)), one count of sexual intercourse with a child age 10 or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a)), and one count of sodomy with a child age 10 or younger (ibid.). Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 50 years to life, consecutive to a 24-year determinate term.

A jury convicted John Nganga Njuguna of second degree robbery and resisting a police officer. (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (c); 148, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court placed Njuguna on five years of formal probation, with terms that included 252 days in jail offset by credit for time served. Njuguna contends the court erred by denying his request to call a jail psychiatrist to testify regarding his bizarre behavior two days after the robbery and to relay her diagnosis that Njuguna suffered from a “psychotic disorder not otherwise specified” at that time. But the doctor explained at a pretrial hearing that as a clinician rather than a forensic psychiatric expert, and with no opportunity to conduct a formal examination, nor to contact Njuguna’s family members or otherwise learn of any relevant medical or social history, she would not be able to give an opinion concerning Njuguna’s mental state at the time of the offense. Njuguna neither sought a different expert, nor avail

Stacey Leigh Nikkel challenges her conviction for felony child abuse/child endangerment. She argues her conviction should be reversed because (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of a Child Protective Services (CPS) social worker; (2) the trial court should sua sponte have given a limiting instruction as to the testimony of this social worker; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by orchestrating an in-court identification of the child victim. Nikkel further argues that the cumulative effect of these errors resulted in a violation of due process, also requiring reversal of her conviction. We reject each of these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Quy Ngoc Ngo of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (c) [count 1]; all statutory citations are to the Penal Code)). The jury also found Ngo committed the robbery against a victim he knew or should have known was 65 years of age or older (§ 667.9, subd. (a)), and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Ngo contends trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to seek suppression of the victim’s pretrial field identification, which he argues violated his due process rights because it was the product of impermissible suggestion. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.

Defendant Denis Javier Mejia appeals following his conviction by a jury of eight counts of forcible lewd conduct against a child under the age of 14 years. He contends the trial court committed reversible error by removing a sitting juror for bias. He also raises a prosecutorial misconduct claim, a related ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and challenges an order requiring him to pay a portion of his defense costs. Finally, he requests that we review the victim’s confidential school records, to which the trial court denied him access following an in camera review, to determine whether the trial court’s denial constituted an abuse of discretion.

Defendant was charged in an information filed April 27, 2016, with first degree burglary in count 1 (Pen. Code, § 459), car theft in count 2 (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property in count 3 (§ 496d, subd. (a)).
On June 10, 2016, the information was amended to add a charge of second degree burglary (§ 459/460, subd. (a)) and to dismiss the receiving stolen property charge. On the same day, after a negotiated disposition, defendant entered a no contest plea to first degree burglary, car theft, and second degree burglary (§ 459, subd. (b)). The court then sentenced defendant to a concurrent sentence of two years in state prison with credits.

Appellant Jeffery L. Johnson appeals the trial court’s denial of his application to designate his felony conviction a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. Because the record appears to be incomplete, contains contradictory information, and does not reflect whether the trial court properly found Johnson ineligible, we reverse the order and remand for a determination of whether Johnson has a disqualifying conviction.

On March 6, 2017, defendant and appellant Christopher Greenlee filed an in propria persona petition pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subds. (b) & (g)) to reduce his October 14, 1992, burglary conviction under Penal Code section 459 to a misdemeanor conviction under Penal Code section 459.5. On March 16, 2017, the People filed an opposition to defendant’s petition requesting a hearing on the value of the property taken.
On March 28, 2017, the trial court denied defendant’s petition because his conviction for residential burglary under Penal Code sections 459 and 460 made defendant ineligible under Proposition 47. The court noted: “Denied—defendant pled guilty to 1st degree burglary—not eligible for relief.”

A jury convicted defendant George Edward Garland of second degree murder and found true weapons allegations. Defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that (1) admission of preliminary hearing testimony in violation of his constitutional right to confrontation and (2) instructional errors warrant reversal. Defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion to dismiss his prior strike for attempted murder. We affirm on all grounds.

Defendant Katharina Hermine Ferguson was convicted after a jury trial of three felonies: attempted theft from an elder (Pen. Code, §§ 368, subd. (d), 664); identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)); and second degree commercial burglary (§ 459). The court suspended imposition of the sentence and granted probation for three years upon the condition that defendant serve 280 days in jail.
Defendant asserts four claims of error on appeal. First, she contends the court erred by admitting collateral and prejudicial evidence concerning prior threats that the alleged victim, defendant’s mother, claimed had been made by defendant. The alleged victim, Hermine Ferguson (Ms. Ferguson), had asserted in an application for a restraining order that defendant had intimidated her in attempt to get money, and defendant had threatened to get a gun and kill everyone and to burn Ms. Ferguson’s house down.

When police officers responded to a 911 domestic violence call, they encountered defendant and appellant John Cunningham (defendant) at the scene, partially hidden behind some trees. Unbeknownst to the officers when they arrived, defendant had not committed the reported incident of domestic violence, but he had very recently committed identity theft. Defendant belligerently refused to comply with certain of the officers’ commands, and a scuffle ensued when the officers detained him. Defendant was charged with resisting-arrest-related offenses and with identity theft, and he was tried on all the charges in a single action and convicted on several counts. We consider whether the trial court prejudicially erred by joining the identity theft charges for trial with the resisting arrest charges, and by permitting the prosecution to introduce testimony regarding defendant’s methamphetamine use as evidence of motive.

A jury convicted Ronald Joseph Carrari of resisting an executive officer by means of threats (Pen. Code, § 69 ); stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)); and possession of a short-barreled shotgun (§ 33215). The trial court sentenced him to four years and four months in state prison for his crimes. It suspended execution of the sentence and placed Carrari on five years of formal probation.
Carrari challenges his conviction for resisting an executive officer based on insufficient evidence, incorrect jury instructions, and prosecutorial misconduct. He argues insufficient evidence and incorrect jury instructions on his stalking conviction. Carrari also contends his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance because he did not file a motion to suppress or a motion to quash or traverse. We affirm.