CA Unpub Decisions

While inebriated, defendant and appellant Robert A. Trujillo set school property
on fire and vandalized and burglarized a church. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant
pled guilty to arson of a structure (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c); count 1),1 vandalism over
$400 (§ 594, subd. (a); count 4), and grand theft of personal property exceeding $950
(§ 487, subd. (a); count 5). In return, the remaining charges were dismissed and
defendant was sentenced to a total term of four years eight months in state prison with
720 days’ credit for time served. Following a victim restitution hearing, defendant was
ordered to pay $271,115.58 to the school district and $103,229.80 to the church.
Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record,
we find no error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant, Andre Duval Jackson, appeals from an order granting his
Proposition 47 petition (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)) for resentencing.
1 When thecourt resentenced him, it imposed jail time with full credit for time served and one year
of postrelease community supervision (PRCS).

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Eugene Hackett, Jr., has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On July 25, 2015, defendant and his girlfriend, Ashley F., had an argument. Ashley F. called 911 and reported that defendant was drunk, had destroyed the house, and left on foot but may come back. A neighbor heard screaming from defendant’s house. Later, when she went outside, Ashley F. was holding a baby and asked to use her phone.

Plaintiff, Satish Shetty, purports to appeal from an order
dismissing his appeal which challenged the foreclosure on and
the securitization of a loan. Defendant, Standard Pacific
Mortgage formerly known as Family Lending Services, Inc., has
moved to dismiss the appeal. We agree that plaintiff’s notice of
appeal was not timely filed as to defendant.

Defendant Amanda Rachelle Miller contends the trial court violated her right to due process by erroneously instructing the jury regarding her claim-of-right defense to a robbery charge. Disagreeing, we shall affirm.
At approximately 11:00 p.m. on August 24, 2014, C.W. and her friend D.P. went to a pharmacy to make a purchase. Behind them in line were defendant and Afra Aldakak, defendant’s girlfriend of two years, who were silently staring at them. D.P. gave C.W. money for the purchase, left the pharmacy, and sat in the front passenger seat of C.W.’s car. When C.W. got the counter, she took $380 out of her bra, pulled her identification out of her wallet, and counted the money. Upon completing the transaction, she put her money and identification into her wallet and left the store.

Appellant Karen Kathleen Clarke appeals from an
order denying her application to have her felony conviction
redesignated as a misdemeanor under Penal Code1 section 1170.18,
subdivision (f). Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying
her application because her felony conviction for violation of
section 484e, subdivision (d)—the unlawful acquisition and
possession of access card account information—fell under the recall
provisions of Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools
Act (§ 1170.18, subds. (a)–(e)). In view of the Supreme Court’s
recent decision in People v. Romanowski (Mar. 27, 2017, S231405)
___ Cal.5th___ [2017 D.A.R. 2938] (Romanowski), holding that the
theft of access card account information is one of the crimes eligible
for reduced punishment under Proposition 47, we reverse and
remand for further proceedings.

Defendant Domenick Lacurt Bryant pleaded no contest to possession of precursors for manufacture of methamphetamine with intent to sell, conspiracy to commit that offense, and commercial burglary. He also admitted a prior strike conviction and three prior prison terms. The trial court originally sentenced defendant to 11 years 8 months in prison, but subsequently resentenced him to 10 years 4 months in prison.
Defendant now contends he is entitled to an additional reduction of his sentence because one of his prior prison terms was for petty theft with a prior, a conviction that has since been reduced to a misdemeanor. We will affirm.

Appellant Jonathan Cary appeals from his convictions
and challenges his sentences for attempted murder, assault
with a deadly weapon and residential burglary. He contends
that the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument concerning
appellant’s sanity, defense counsel, appellant’s expert witness,
and his temporary pro. per. status amounted to misconduct that
undermined his defense and denied him due process and a fair trial.
Appellant further complains that the court abused its discretion in
sentencing when it considered improper aggravating factors and
ignored mitigating evidence. We disagree and therefore affirm.

Defendants Raymond Caudillo III and Eladio Tena, both teenagers and Norteño gang members, assaulted a mail carrier, breaking his cheekbone in three places. A jury found defendants guilty of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4), count 1), battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d), count 2), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a), count 5). The jury also found true gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B) & (C)) to counts 1 and 2, and as to Caudillo found true the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) to count 1. The jury also found true the allegation allowing both defendants to be tried in adult criminal court. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 707, subd. (d)(1).) Caudillo was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and Tena to 4 years.

traveled to San Francisco where the group attacked and killed Cameron. In addition to being beaten, Cameron was stabbed several times and suffered a hatchet wound to the back of his head. He died within two hours of the attack.
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the San Francisco County Juvenile Court found that M.T. had committed second degree murder, a lesser offense to the charged offense of first degree murder. M.T. was transferred to Sacramento County for disposition, where he was continued a ward of the court and committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities for a maximum period of 15 years to life, not to exceed the statutory limitation for such commitment to age 23.

Defendant now contends his transportation conviction must be reversed because he is entitled to retroactive application of the amendment to Health and Safety Code section 11352, which requires that a controlled substance be transported for sale. The People agree and urge remand for further proceedings. Defendant also claims the sentence enhancements attached to his transportation conviction must be vacated.
We agree defendant is entitled to retroactive application of the amendment to section 11352. We will reverse his transportation conviction and the related sentencing enhancements and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Erik Alberto Cardenas appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by a jury of simple kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)); attempting to dissuade a victim, by force or threat, from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)); attempting to dissuade a victim from assisting in the prosecution of a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)); and three counts of inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant. (§ 273.5, subd. (a).) One of the corporal injury counts (count 2) alleged a date that was the same as the date of the kidnapping. As to this count, the jury found that appellant had personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) Appellant was sentenced to prison for 12 years.

Paul S. Tiwana (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of domestic violence. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) The jury also found true the allegation that defendant inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 15 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on mutual combat with CALCRIM No. 3471, and in failing to provide the dictionary definitions of the terms “great vs. moderate” in response to the jury’s request. Defendant also contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding he inflicted great bodily injury. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

Appellant Miguel Carnero appeals from the trial court’s
post-conviction order requiring him to pay victim restitution.
The court imposed victim restitution as a probation condition,
but it failed to obtain appellant’s consent to victim restitution as a
condition of his probation, and thus the victim restitution order
cannot stand. Accordingly we reverse and remand.