CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Zachary Williams appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)). His counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On December 29, 2016, we sent defendant a letter informing him of the nature of the brief that had been filed and advising him that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief setting forth issues he wished this court to consider. Defendant submitted a letter in response dated February 15, 2017.

A traffic stop for expired registration tags led to the December 8, 2003 filing of a one-count felony complaint charging defendant with a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). The pleading alleged defendant “did unlawfully drive and take a certain vehicle, to wit, a 1982 Datsun without the consent of and with intent, either permanently or temporarily, to deprive the [ ] owner of title to and possession of said vehicle.” (Italics added.) The court accepted defendant’s guilty plea the following day. Item 18 in the plea form, where defendant could “offer to the court the following as a basis for [her] plea of guilty,” was left blank. The court’s December 9, 2003 minute order recited, “Count 01: 10851(A) VC FEL − TAKE VEH W/O OWNER’S CONSENT

Defendant and appellant Ronnell Alonzo Spears was charged by amended information with pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a), count 1) and pandering by procuring another person for prostitution (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1), count 2). A jury found him guilty of count 2. However, it was unable to reach a verdict on count 1, so a trial court declared a mistrial as to that count. The court granted the People’s subsequent motion to dismiss count 1, and it sentenced defendant to the middle term of four years in state prison on count 2.
On appeal, defendant argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for the low term and instead sentencing him to the middle term. We affirm.

The People filed an information charging Marquise Caliz and Rayvon Moreland with the murder of Andre Lockhart and the attempted murder of Steven Wade. The People alleged Caliz and Moreland committed the crimes for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by the gang, within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). The People further alleged a principal personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (e), a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). The case was tried to a jury, which deadlocked (10-2 in favor of guilt for Caliz, 11-1 in favor of acqui

Defendant Ricky Rodriguez appeals the trial court’s judgment committing him to a state hospital for an indeterminate term following a court trial finding that he is a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) He contends he was prejudiced by voluminous case-specific hearsay evidence elicited from expert witnesses in violation of state hearsay law as recently articulated in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). In the event this court finds he forfeited this claim, he also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve this claim for appeal.

A jury convicted defendant Ian Anthony Bulandr under Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (b) for attempt to manufacture a weapon while in custody in state prison. On appeal, Bulandr contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, (2) his counsel was ineffective, and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct. We disagree and affirm.

On June 4, 2014, Bulandr, a Pelican Bay inmate, worked in the Security Housing Unit kitchen and made his way through the security check following his shift. When Correctional Officer Shane Parr checked Bulandr’s rectum with the handheld metal detector, the device sounded. He confirmed the detection with a second handheld metal detector. Bulandr was handcuffed and taken to a holding cell.

In 2013, a jury convicted Rivera of battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), and found true he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) in case No. SCD240753. The trial court found true allegations that Rivera had served two prior prison terms (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668) and suffered one prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, 1192.7, subd. (c)) as well as two prior strike convictions (§§ 211, 245, subd. (b), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668).

In this Proposition 47 case (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), defendant Valentine Aparicio appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing as to his conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)). Defendant contends Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (§ 1170.18), implicitly includes the offense of receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of section 496, subdivision (a), which makes the receipt of stolen property valued at $950 or less punishable as a misdemeanor. Defendant also contends that denial of his petition for resentencing violated his equal protection rights.
We conclude a conviction for violating section 496d, subdivision (a), does not qualify for resentencing under Proposition 47. We also reject defendant’s equal protection challenge. The trial court therefore did not err in denying defendant’s petition for resentencing, and we affirm the judgment.

In 2013, three separate shootings occurred in Bakersfield, California: (1) a “drive-by” in the parking lot of Roy’s Market on February 6; (2) the homicide of Floyd Beam, Jr. outside Roy’s Market on February 10; and (3) an incident at a family gathering on March 3 about a mile from Roy’s Market at a residence located at 420 Whitlock.
Appellant Dvontae Larome Pink was charged with these crimes along with codefendants Wendall Keith Allen, Jimmy Lee Baker, and Trevonte Shevelle Williams. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy among the codefendants, who were all identified as Country Boy Crip (CBC) gang members. A fellow CBC member, Devontay Garrett, acting on behalf of law enforcement, had secretly recorded Baker and Williams speaking about these shootings, and portions of the recordings were introduced into evidence at trial. Based on Williams’s statements, the evidence showed that appellant participated in the drive-by shooting.

Plaintiffs Thomas Jones (Jones) and Jia Jones were involved in an automobile accident with a motorist who was insured by defendant and respondent Mercury Insurance Company (Mercury). Mercury took responsibility for the damage to plaintiffs’ car, which plaintiffs had repaired, but notified the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that it was a total loss salvage vehicle before reaching a settlement with plaintiffs. As a result of the DMV notification, the plaintiffs could not register their car and temporarily lost the use of it until Mercury informed the DMV of the error. Mr. Jones later suffered a heart attack, which plaintiffs attributed to the stress from the dispute with Mercury and the consequences of the DMV notification.

Bradley Elmer Nicholson was convicted of first degree residential burglary, second degree burglary of a detached barn used for storage, and attempted taking of a vehicle. He appeals only his conviction for second degree burglary, for which he received a concurrent sentence of three years in prison. As to this conviction, the certified reporter’s transcript reflects a verdict of “not guilty,” while the written verdict form and remainder of the record reflects a verdict of “guilty.” Nicholson argues the verdict reflected in the reporter’s transcript is the jury’s true verdict, and therefore his conviction for second degree burglary must be reversed. The People argue that the reporter’s transcription is in error, and request that we remand the matter to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the reporter’s transcript is erroneous. We find the reporter’s transcript contains an obvious error and order the trial court to order the court reporter to correc

Defendant Travis James Hoffmeister was convicted by a jury of the first degree murder of Christella Macias. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) After denying his motion for a new trial, the court sentenced Hoffmeister to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison.
On appeal, Hoffmeister argues: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the murder was committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence, specifically books obtained from a storage locker, evidence of prior property damage carried out by Hoffmeister with a specific type of hammer, and evidence of a prior incident in which Hoffmeister choked his girlfriend. Hoffmeister also argues that, if the evidentiary errors are deemed waived by defense counsel’s failure to timely object at trial, his counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance.

In October 2015 NWHC President Sean Morales submitted an application for a business license to the City to operate a retail/convenience store under the name Bellflower Cannabis Garden. When asked, Morales told the City employee behind the counter the business would be selling medical marijuana. The employee told Morales the City did not issue licenses for medical marijuana and declined to accept any fee to process the license. Morales left the application at the counter.

A jury found defendant Jacob Reed Fisher guilty of first degree murder. On appeal, he challenges the admission of several text messages. He first contends the trial court erred in admitting text messages from the victim to defendant’s cell phone. He argues the texts were hearsay and lacked foundation to be relevant to his motive or mental state. He next challenges, as inadmissible hearsay, text messages sent by his codefendant and contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to, and seek a limiting instruction for, that evidence. Disagreeing, we will affirm.