CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant and defendant Christopher T. Martin was found in violation of his Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), ordered to serve local time, and reinstated on PRCS. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm.

Appellant and defendant Christopher Martin was found in violation of his Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), ordered to serve local time, and reinstated on PRCS. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm.

E.M., Sr., father of now three-year-old E.M., Jr., appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d) that he sexually abused his stepdaughter. He contends there was insufficient evidence that sexual abuse occurred as defined by the statute because there was no evidence that he intentionally touched his stepdaughter for sexual arousal or self-gratification as required by law. Respondent Kern County Department of Human Services (department) concedes error and the parties have stipulated to a reversal of the jurisdictional finding and remand to the juvenile court to vacate the finding. We accept the parties’ stipulation, grant the request for a stipulated reversal, remand directing the juvenile court to vacate the finding and order an immediate issuance of the remittitur.

Defendant Vernon Leroy Kolb appeals from an order extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972. On appeal, he contends that (1) substantial evidence did not support the findings that (a) defendant was not in remission and (b) defendant remained dangerous, and (2) the trial court misunderstood the law regarding extending commitment for MDOs and failed to make the required findings. The People disagree on both accounts. We affirm.

Defendant Augustus Matthew Marinovich contends on appeal that his sentences on counts 3 and 4 should be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The People agree. We stay defendant’s sentences on counts 3 and 4, and affirm in all other respects.

In 2013, appellant Jose Antonio Flores-Ventura was convicted by jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted first degree murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). In addition, the jury found true a special circumstance alleging the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) He was sentenced to a prison term of life without the possibility of parole plus a term of life with the possibility of parole.
In 2019, following the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437), Flores-Ventura filed a section 1170.95 petition for resentencing seeking to vacate his murder conviction. Following the appointment of counsel, submission of briefs by the parties, and a contested hearing, the court denied Flores-Ventura’s petition. On appeal, Flores-Ventura contends the trial court erred in denying his petition, and that the error is reversible. We affirm.

Appellant and defendant Eddie Perez was convicted of multiple crimes arising out of attacks and rapes of his 16-year-old girlfriend. Among these crimes were rape, torture, and spousal abuse. The trial court executed three consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole on three separate rape counts that included “One Strike” law special circumstances for the infliction of torture and commission of rape against a child 14 years of age or older. The trial court also imposed a consecutive sentence of 10 years on a spousal abuse count. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him for the substantive offense of spousal abuse and one-strike torture special circumstance because the two offenses were part of the same course of conduct. We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ricardo Rodriguez has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having reviewed the record, we shall vacate the $25 administrative screening fee imposed pursuant to Penal Code former section 1463.07 that was unpaid as of July 1, 2021, in light of the passage of Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021 ch. 257, §§ 34-35). Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will otherwise affirm the judgment.

The trial court denied defendant Davonte Stinson’s request to strike or reduce a firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). Defendant appeals, arguing the court misunderstood its discretion because it declined to modify the enhancement of conviction to an uncharged lesser enhancement not considered by the jury.
In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s order. (People v. Stinson, April 29, 2022, C093993 [nonpub. opn.].) On transfer, defendant contends the matter must be remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike or reduce the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) firearm enhancement. The Attorney General offers no opposition. We will remand the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion accordingly.

Defendant Jeffrey Stuart Lawhorn is before this court for a second time.
An information charged defendant with multiple offenses related to methamphetamine, including as relevant here possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 3) in an amount more than one kilogram (id., § 11370.4, subd. (b)(1); enhancement 2 to count 3). The information also charged defendant with four prior strikes, providing details of those convictions, and citing Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d). Pursuant to the three strikes law, defendant faced a sentence of 25 years to life if convicted of count 3 and the corresponding weight allegation. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(i), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(i); Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (b)(1).)

Defendant William Torrie Delano Pollard shot a woman in the face and hand as her boyfriend drove her and three young children to school. A jury found defendant guilty of five counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and found true multiple enhancements. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his Batson/Wheeler motion and by declining to instruct the jury on a theory of self-defense. Defendant also argues that he is entitled to resentencing under Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 124). We will remand the matter for resentencing in accordance with the new legislation, but affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Defendant Harry Darnell Laws appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Defendant argues the trial court erred when it denied his petition without appointing counsel because he made a prima facie showing that his conviction was based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In particular, he asserts the court incorrectly engaged in factfinding when it considered the appellate opinion deciding his direct appeal and used the conclusions in that opinion to decide whether he had stated a prima facie case for eligibility under section 1170.95. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Steven Michael Castro of committing a lewd act upon I., a five-year-old girl (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and possessing child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a)). It also found true an allegation that the possession of child pornography involved multiple images. (§ 311.11, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of six years eight months.
Defendant now contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for committing a lewd act, (2) evidence of I.’s extra-judicial statements should not have been admitted, and (3) the trial court should not have instructed the jury that it could use I.’s extra-judicial statements to evaluate defendant’s subsequent conduct.
We conclude (1) substantial evidence supports the lewd act conviction, (2) some of defendant’s evidentiary challenges are forfeited and he fails to establish abuse of discretion,

In 2016, defendant Debra Suzanne Schultz looked away from the road when driving, and plaintiff Erica Arashiro was injured in the resulting traffic accident. After receiving treatment from a medical doctor specializing in pain management, plaintiff chose to end that treatment, and did not seek any other treatment for about one year, when she began seeing a chiropractor. Defendant’s expert witness testified the pain treatment plaintiff received soon after the traffic accident was not necessary, as physical therapy “works 95 percent of the time” for the “whiplash” that plaintiff suffered. The expert also testified there was “no anatomic basis” for the pain plaintiff said she felt at the 2018 trial.
A jury awarded total damages of $34,257, though plaintiff’s past medical expenses alone were nearly $60,000.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred by (1) admitting defense expert testimony regarding the reasonableness and necessity of treatment she received;