CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Leopoldo Trevino III appeals the order denying his Penal Code section 1170.18 petition to redesignate his felony conviction for grand theft of personal property to a misdemeanor. For the reasons stated here, we conclude that defendant did not satisfy his burden of showing eligibility for relief and will affirm the order without prejudice to later consideration of a properly supported petition.

On September 8, 2016, a jury convicted Brandon Thompson of first degree burglary under Penal Code sections 459 and 460. The jury also determined that “another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence” during the burglary, making the burglary a “violent felony.” (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) Thompson waived trial on whether he had a prior conviction for a “serious felony” for purposes of sections 667, subdivision (a)(1) and 1170.12, subdivision (b)(1), and admitted that he did.
The court sentenced Thompson to nine years in state prison. (§§ 461, subd. (a), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 667, subd. (a)(1).) He filed his notice of appeal the same day.

Defendant and appellant Mario Rodriguez attacked his roommate with a baseball bat. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of simple assault (Pen. Code, § 240). Defendant was thereafter placed on formal probation for a period of three years on various terms and conditions. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $1,960 in victim restitution. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in awarding victim restitution for amounts incurred for relocation expenses. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Shane Allen Pittmon appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on two counts of first degree residential burglary (counts 1 & 2) and one count of attempted first degree residential burglary (count 3), with findings as to each offense he committed it for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 459, 460, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B).) We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.

Plaintiffs and appellants Top Gun, Ltd. (Top Gun), Proteus Air Services, Inc. (Proteus), SCS Aircraft Management, LLC (SCS), and Datom, Inc. (Datom) (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained demurrers to their first amended complaint without leave to amend. The demurring defendants and respondents are Vector-US, Inc. (Vector) and the City of Santa Monica (City).

Plaintiff, cross-defendant and appellant Chandu Patel (Chandu) appeals an order of the superior court granting a preliminary injunction in conformity with an arbitrator’s interim award.
We affirm, concluding Chandu has failed to show any grounds for vacating the award that was the basis for the superior court’s order granting a preliminary injunction.

Appellant Lorenzo Vizcarra and his codefendants Luis Carmona and Michelle Hernandez were convicted of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and recklessly evading the police. The jury also found that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim and that he and Hernandez acted to benefit a criminal street gang and were guilty of street terrorism. Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support certain aspects of the jury’s verdict, and the introduction of hearsay evidence from the prosecution’s gang expert undermined his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford).

Defendant Salvatore Talamo was ordered to pay $221,866.94 as victim restitution following his plea of no contest to embezzlement. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred because the order was not supported by substantial evidence, and that he was denied due process because the restitution hearing was not a fair proceeding. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the order.

Cesar Paz appeals from an order requiring him to pay the costs of preparing his probation and sentencing report (the Report). Paz argues the trial court erred in ordering him to pay the costs of preparing the Report. The Attorney General concedes the error, assuming we conclude the claim is preserved for appellate review. We conclude it is and reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Terry Paul Keever filed applications pursuant to Proposition 47 and Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f) to have two prior felony convictions in 2002 for receiving stolen property (Super. Ct. Tuolumne County, 2001, No. CRF5923) and second degree burglary (Super. Ct. Tuolumne County, 2001, No. CRF6802) reduced to misdemeanors. The applications were filed on February 17, 2015, after Keever had served his sentences for the convictions. The trial court set a hearing date for May 19, 2015. The People filed responses not objecting to Keever’s application to reduce the second degree burglary conviction to a misdemeanor, but objecting to Keever’s application to reduce his conviction for receiving stolen property to a misdemeanor because there was no evidence of the value of the property.

Defendant Dominque Dajon Fantroy (defendant) was convicted by a jury of the first degree residential robbery of Rafael Lopez (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1), and the first degree residential burglary of Martha Johns (§ 459; count two). On appeal, defendant contends (1) substantial evidence did not support his conviction on either count, and (2) the abstract of judgment should be corrected to accurately reflect the trial court’s award of pre-sentence custody credits. As we now discuss, we affirm the conviction and order the abstract of judgment corrected to accurately reflect defendant’s pre-sentence custody credits.

Defendant Anthony Charles Champagne appeals from an order denying his Proposition 47 petition for resentencing on a second degree burglary conviction. He contends the trial court erred because the facts of the offense constitute a misdemeanor under current law, so he qualifies for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) (enacted by Proposition 47). As we will explain, defendant presented no evidence to the trial court regarding the circumstances of the offense and therefore necessarily did not meet his burden of proving eligibility for relief. For that reason, we must affirm the order, without prejudice to defendant bringing a new Proposition 47 petition that is supported by adequate evidence.

Appointed counsel for defendant Philip Mark Andreas has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We affirm the judgment.
We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.

Appellant Michael Dutton (Dutton) appeals from an order determining that he owes child support arrearages to his former wife, Suzanne Smith (Smith). Respondent is the County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Department (the Department), which provided support services to Smith. We affirm the order.