CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Leonard Lee Warford was charged with criminal offenses in three separate cases filed between 2011 and 2013. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 years 8 months in all three cases in 2014.
On appeal, he contends that his conviction for transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) must be reversed because the statute under which he was convicted was amended before he was sentenced to provide that a defendant must transport the controlled substances for purposes of sale. He claims the stipulated factual basis for his plea did not include any facts indicating he had an intent to sell the drug he was transporting. He also argues that his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) must be reversed because he was tried by the court without expressly waiving his right to a jury trial. Finally, he urges that he cannot be convicted of, or punished for, both battery and assault by means of

David Tubbs appeals an order denying his motion to reduce and reclassify his prior conviction for acquiring or retaining possession of access card account information (Pen. Code, § 484e, subd. (d)) from a felony to a misdemeanor under the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (§ 1170.18) (hereafter "Proposition 47"). We conclude the trial court erred by ruling that this conviction does not qualify as an eligible offense for reclassification under Proposition 47 and section 490.2. We reverse and remand.

Following a joint trial, a jury convicted Ruben Ramon Guajardo, the shooter, and his cousin Gino Wayne Taylor, an aider and abettor, of the first degree murder of Victor Aranda. Guajardo confessed during the investigation and the jury rejected his claim of self-defense. Both defendants challenge the admissibility of Instagram posts on multiple grounds. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the social media evidence; nor did the admission of the evidence violate either defendants’ constitutional right to due process. We accept the Attorney General’s concession that Guajardo’s prior juvenile adjudication does not qualify as a strike under the three strikes law and remand for resentencing. We reject, however, the remaining instructional and sentencing challenges, and in all other respects, affirm the judgments.

Jerry Stone was convicted by a jury of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and corporal injury against a cohabitant, with enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily injury on his victim. He contends the court violated his rights to due process and an impartial jury when it allowed a deputy sheriff prosecution witness to briefly serve as bailiff during the trial and that it improperly circumscribed his ability to impeach a prosecution witness with her prior arrest. His assertions are meritless, so we affirm.

A jury convicted Sara Charis Snow of three counts of workers' compensation fraud (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1)) and two counts of attempted perjury under oath (Pen. Code, §§ 118, subd. (a); 664). The two attempted perjury counts (counts 3 and 4) were based on statements Snow made during a deposition relating to her ability to lift and carry a paddleboard. On appeal, Snow contends that her convictions on counts 3 and 4 should be consolidated into a single conviction for perjury under section 954 because the statements underlying each count involved the same "material matter" for purposes of section 118. She further contends that conviction of the two counts constitutes multiple convictions for the same offense, in violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. (U.S. Const., 5th Amend.)

Defendant Juan Pizano pleaded no contest to shooting at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246) and burglary (§ 459). He was subsequently sentenced to 18 years and eight months in prison. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, namely a cell phone, found in the search of a vehicle. We conclude defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the car or, initially in the cell phone, and affirm.

Defendant Sergio Osejo was convicted by a jury of committing multiple sexual offenses against 13-year-old Eliana Doe and raping A.M. He contends the court’s failure to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a broad warrant to search his Facebook account violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that he was prejudiced by the resulting admission of Facebook messages he exchanged with other underage girls. Osejo also contends his attorney rendered ineffective legal assistance by failing to lay a proper foundation for impeachment evidence, the court failed to give required instructions on unanimity and reasonable mistake of fact, and his sentence violates the proscription against multiple punishment for offenses arising from an indivisible course of conduct.

A jury found defendant John David Matta guilty of the first degree murder of his mother. On appeal, he argues two instances of instructional error, erroneous exclusion of evidence, and cumulative error. We find defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s instruction regarding voluntary intoxication and that defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

Sentenced to state prison after violating probation, defendant Jason Lee Marshall contends the trial court erred in calculating his sentence by failing to award four days of presentence custody credit for time spent in a residential rehabilitation facility. Because the record shows defendant knowingly and intelligently waived such credit as a condition of probation, we affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Matthew Rod Kline 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

After a jury trial, defendant Edward John Kelleher was convicted of the felony offense of criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a) ). At a bifurcated proceeding, the jury also found true that defendant had suffered a prior serious and strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1);1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). At sentencing, the court imposed an aggregate term of seven years and eight months in state prison, consisting of two years and eight months (the lower term doubled for the prior conviction) on the substantive crime, plus a consecutive term of five years for the prior conviction enhancement.
On appeal, defendant’s sole argument is that the procedure by which he was found to have suffered a prior conviction contained a structural defect, requiring automatic reversal and a remand for a new hearing. We see no merit to defendant’s argument of a structural defect, and further conclude that any purported error in procedure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we

Juwayriya Jaimes appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which she was convicted of three misdemeanor offenses: injuring a boyfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and refusal or failure to provide a specimen (§ 298.1, subd. (a)). The trial court granted appellant three years formal probation on the condition that she serve 180 days in county jail.
Defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Appellant did not file any supplemental brief of her own.

An information, filed January 5, 2015, charged appellant Alfred Gutierrez with four counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years old, in violation of Penal Code, section 288, subdivision (a). The information further alleged that all four counts were serious felonies, pursuant to section 1192.7, subdivision (c), and that count 1 was a violent felony, pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (c). The information alleged further that Gutierrez had committed offenses defined in section 667.61, subdivision (c), against more than one victim, and that he was thus subject to a potential life sentence pursuant to section 667.61, subdivision (a).
At the preliminary hearing in the case, Gutierrez’s adult daughter testified that, on multiple occasions beginning when she was about five years old, Gutierrez touched her private parts and made her touch his penis. She also testified that on multiple occasions, he made her perform oral sex on him. The six-year-old daughter of Gutie

Defendant Michael Gebre appeals from a judgment of the trial court upon a negotiated disposition of his case that resulted in his conviction for second degree robbery and a sentence of nine years in state prison. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized by police that supported this conviction because he was stopped and detained in violation of his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We disagree and affirm the judgment.