CA Unpub Decisions

Daniel Robert Taddei was convicted of rape, forcible oral copulation, and incest, as a result of sexually assaulting his 17-year-old half sister, C.M. He was also convicted of domestic violence and felony witness intimidation for, respectively, hitting his wife, Ashley Taddei (Ashley), and impelling her to give a false statement to the police. On appeal, Taddei raises three claims of prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct as well as a related claim of cumulative error, all of which we reject. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

A jury found Jay Michael Riley guilty of 27 counts involving sexual molestation of two separate minor girls. The trial court sentenced Riley to an indeterminate prison term of 150 years to life along with a determinate prison term of eight years.
Riley contends (1) the trial court violated his constitutional rights and abused its discretion in permitting a support dog to accompany minor witnesses at the witness stand during their trial testimony; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury with both CALCRIM Nos. 301 and 1190; and (3) defense counsel was ineffective by requesting a specific jury instruction regarding the testimony of an expert on the typical behavior of children who experience sexual abuse. We conclude that Riley's arguments lack merit, and accordingly we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Irving Marcelo Reyes appeals after a jury convicted him of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187) and found true allegations that he committed the offense for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), personally inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1203, subd. (e)(3)), and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, which proximately caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court found true an allegation that defendant had served a prior prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to a seven-year determinate term for the attempted murder, with a consecutive 10-year term for the gang enhancement and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) allegation.

Defendant David Stephen Quintero appeals from an order denying his request to reduce his 2012 sentence by striking the prior prison term enhancements imposed under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) (hereafter, section 667.5(b)). Defendant contends that the trial court should have struck the enhancements because the crimes underlying those convictions have been redesignated as misdemeanors pursuant to section 1170.18 following the passage of Proposition 47. We conclude that Proposition 47 does not apply retroactively to require the striking of a properly imposed prison prior enhancement when the conviction underlying the enhancement is subsequently reduced to a misdemeanor. We must therefore affirm the order.

Defendant and appellant Ralph Molina appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for two counts of making criminal threats, two counts of false imprisonment by violence, felony infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, and misdemeanor resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer. The charges arose from three separate incidents involving Molina and his girlfriend, Maria Torres. During the first incident, Molina allegedly choked Torres. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on this count; consequently the trial court declared a mistrial and dismissed it. In the second incident, Molina allegedly threatened Torres with a knife and told her she could not leave their residence. The jury convicted Molina of making criminal threats and false imprisonment by violence, but found the allegation that he used a knife not true.

Defendant Ny Mao was convicted by plea of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). He also admitted that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, a knife, in the commission of the assault (§§ 667, 1192.7). The trial court found true an allegation that defendant had a prior conviction that qualified as a strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12). The court sentenced defendant to four years in prison and ordered him to pay various amounts, including a criminal justice administration fee (“booking fee”) of $129.75 to the City of San Jose.

Defendant Maximiliano Lopez III was convicted of various crimes in two cases. On appeal, he contends the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The People agree, as do we. We direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment, and we affirm as modified.
On January 15, 2016, defendant was sentenced in two cases. In case No. F15903675, the trial court sentenced him on the Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) conviction (count 3) to two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and on the Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b) conviction (count 1) to eight months, doubled to 16 months pursuant to the Three Strikes law, for a total term of five years four months.

In 2014, Shelton Giles pleaded guilty to burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). He was granted probation on various terms and conditions.
Following the grant of probation, there were four violations between 2014 and 2016. In each instance Giles was reinstated to probation. At the completion of the fifth violation hearing on January 21, 2016, the court sentenced Giles to the upper term of three years. The court suspended the execution of sentence and again reinstated Giles on probation.
After yet another violation of probation established at an evidentiary hearing, probation was again revoked and the court declined to reinstate probation. The stayed three-year term was then executed. Giles filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende.

In May 2015, an information was filed charging defendant and appellant Steven Kurt Dony—along with other individuals, none of whom are parties to this appeal—with conspiracy to commit theft (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a) & 484, subd. (a); count 1); 40 counts of filing a false instrument (§ 115, subd. (a); counts 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 61, 64-68, 72, 75, 77, 79 & 81); 30 counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (b); counts 4, 7, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 48, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 69, 76, 78 & 80); and 11 counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); counts 8, 14, 35, 49, 60, 63, 70, 71, 73, 74 & 82). The information also charged an aggravated white collar crime enhancement (§ 186.11, subd. (a)) and alleged that defendant had a prior conviction for filing false instruments (§ 115, subds. (a) & (c)) and five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). All charges ag

A jury convicted Anthony Davis of several felonies, including inflicting corporal injury on a woman with whom he had a dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and criminal threats (§ 422). The trial court found Davis’s prior convictions true, denied his new trial motion, and sentenced him to state prison.
Davis appeals. He claims the court erred by: (1) instructing the jury on flight after crime (CALCRIM No. 372); (2) eliminating a factor from the jury instruction on evaluating witness credibility (CALCRIM No. 226); (3) failing to adequately inquire “whether he wished to be present” on the first day of trial testimony; and (4) denying his new trial motion. Davis also argues cumulative errors require reversal.

Defendants Lisa Marie Barboa (Barboa) and Michael Sperling (Sperling) (collectively, defendants) appeal their convictions for conspiracy to commit extortion. They argue that the jury’s verdict is not supported by substantial evidence, that the trial court erred in allowing two gang experts to label the scheme they furthered as “extortion,” and that the court committed several sentencing errors. We conclude there is no defect with their convictions, but conclude that the trial court erred in treating Sperling’s juvenile adjudication as a strike under our “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (a)-(d) & 1170.12, subds. (b)-(j).). Accordingly, we affirm Barboa’s conviction and sentence, affirm Sperling’s conviction, and revise Sperling’s sentence to a sentence of seven years to life.

In 2016, defendant filed a self-styled “Motion To Vacate Judgment For Lack of Jurisdiction” raising a single claim—namely, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the original complaint filed against him was signed by someone other than the complainant in violation of section 806. The trial court summarily denied the motion, and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues. We invited defendant to file a supplemental brief. Defendant filed a letter brief renewing his challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, and raised two entirely new arguments. We sought additional briefing from the parties on one of the two new arguments defendant raised in his letter brief.

Defendant George Louis Bachmeier, having previously been found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state hospital, appeals from an order extending his commitment under Penal Code section 1026.5. At the court trial to extend his commitment, the prosecution’s case was based solely on a report by the state hospital where defendant was committed. The court concluded that defendant represents a substantial danger to others because of a mental disorder and extended his term of commitment for two years. (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (8).)

The appeal and cross-appeal herein relate to attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 in the litigation underlying an appeal we decided previously, North Modesto Groundwater Alliance v. City of Modesto (Jan. 13, 2017, F072165) [nonpub. opn.]. In that decision, we reversed a judgment on the merits in favor of plaintiff. The trial court had awarded attorneys’ fees to plaintiff, but the issue of attorneys’ fees was not included in the prior appeal. Instead, plaintiff filed the present appeal from the attorneys’ fees order, arguing that a larger amount should have been awarded. Defendants then filed a cross-appeal, arguing that no attorneys’ fees should have been awarded. The remittitur has now been issued in the prior appeal.