CA Unpub Decisions

In this case, plaintiff Melanie Welch objected to certain actions taken by defendant
California State Teachers’ Retirement Board (CalSTRS) after CalSTRS -- acting under
the command of a writ of mandate -- reconsidered (and granted) her application for
disability retirement benefits. The trial court overruled Welch’s objections and
discharged the writ. Because Welch’s objections relate to actions taken after CalSTRS
fully complied with the terms of the writ, they were beyond the limited scope of the trial
court’s jurisdiction in this case following issuance of the writ. Accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Isaac Jacob Miranda punched a 57-year-old stranger in the face for no apparent reason, other than to impress his fellow gang members. Defendant’s punch caused the victim to suffer bleeding from the face and mouth and a fractured cheek bone and eye socket.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The jury also found true that defendant had personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that defendant committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had suffered two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1173.12, subd. (a)-(d)).

The People charged Leo Christopher West with three
counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The People
alleged in two of the counts that a person other than an
accomplice was present during the commission of the burglaries
(Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)) and in one of the counts that
one of the victims was 65 years or older (Pen. Code, § 667.9, subd.
(a)). The People also alleged West had suffered three prior
serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the
three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(j); 1170.12), two
serious felony convictions under Penal Code section 667,
subdivision (a)(1), and had served three separate prison terms for
felonies (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

“On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (hereafter Proposition 47), which went into effect the next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).)” (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47 created a resentencing provision, codified at Penal Code section 1170.18, which provides that a person currently serving a sentence for certain designated felonies may petition for recall of the sentence to reduce felonies to misdemeanors. Defendant Christopher Ritchey-Bibbs appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce a commitment conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Defendant and appellant Derrick Lynn Johnson
(defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury
convicted him of failing to register as a sex offender. Defendant
was required to register as a sex offender following his 1986
conviction of two counts of sexual penetration with a foreign
object and seven counts of first degree burglary, crimes he
committed when he was 17 years old, and for which he was tried
as an adult.

Defendant Andre Lamar Harris purports to appeal from orders dismissing his postjudgment motions to modify his sentence by reducing or vacating a restitution fine or restitution on the ground of inability to pay the fine or the restitution.
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We shall dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm defendant’s conviction.
An amended information filed May 25, 2016, charged defendant Mark Joseph Edmonds with four counts of assault with a deadly weapon (counts one through four; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and alleged he served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
A jury convicted defendant on count two, but could not reach a verdict on the other three counts, as to which the trial court declared a mistrial. Defendant waived his right to jury trial on the priors and admitted them.
The People thereafter agreed to dismiss counts one, three, and four with a Harvey waiver. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.)

“On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (hereafter Proposition 47), which went into effect the next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).)” (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47 created a resentencing provision, codified at Penal Code section 1170.18, which provides that a person currently serving a sentence for certain designated felonies may petition for recall of the sentence to reduce felonies to misdemeanors. Defendant Carlos Alonzo Johnson appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce commitment convictions from felonies to misdemeanors.
Defendant’s petition for resentencing was denied upon a determination that he was not eligible for relief under Proposition 47 because the referenced commitment offenses were violations of section 4573.6, possession of a controlled substance in state prison, which is not among the eligible offenses listed in section 1170.18.

A jury found defendant Johnny Peralez guilty of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(2)) , assault (§ 240), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found true two enhancements to the charge of assault with a firearm--personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subds. (a) & (d)) and causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.7). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 14 years 4 months in prison.
Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to remove two jurors who committed misconduct, and that their misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. He also claims the court gave a coercive instruction after the jury announced it was deadlocked.

Appellant Saxton Dunn entered a plea agreement under which he received a far lighter sentence than what he otherwise faced in connection with charges arising out of a stabbing incident. After pleading no contest to a charge against him in accordance with the plea agreement, he later asked to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the request after hearing testimony from both Dunn and his trial attorney. We conclude that the trial court acted well within its discretion in denying Dunn’s request to withdraw his plea, and we therefore affirm.

George Angel Quintana (Quintana) and Corey Antonio
Gardner (Gardner) (collectively defendants) appeal from
judgments of conviction entered after a jury found them guilty of
second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true
the allegation the crime was committed for the benefit of a
criminal street gang (id., § 186.22, subd. (b)). The trial court
sentenced defendants to terms in state prison of 15 years to life.
On appeal, defendants claim instructional error,
insufficient evidence to support their convictions, and that their
convictions were barred by double jeopardy, collateral estoppel
and Penal Code section 654’s prohibition against subsequent
prosecution after an acquittal or conviction based on the same
conduct. We agree with defendants’ claim of instructional error
and reverse on that basis.
F

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, appellate counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record. She has advised us she reviewed the record in this case before filing her Wende brief. Appellate counsel has advised her client of this determination. She told appellant the client may file a supplemental brief in the matter, but must do so within 30 days of the date counsel’s brief was filed. Appellant has filed a two-page memorandum regarding an issue in the case. The issue concerns an order of restitution imposed by the trial court for the particular count appellant entered her no contest plea. Appellant was given a grant of probation and the order of restitution was imposed after she was sentenced. The appeal is authorized pursuant to Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (b).

Plaintiff Guarantee Forklift, Inc. (GFL) appeals from a summary judgment granted
in favor of defendant Capacity of Texas (Capacity) on GFL’s statutory claim for the
termination of a vehicle franchise without good cause in violation of Vehicle Code
sections 11713.3, 3060, 3061 and 3066.1The trial court ruled that because GFL was not
a “licensee” under section 11726, it lacked standing to bring a private cause of action
based on the alleged violation. We reverse.

Two residents of a mobilehome park were stabbed by another resident with whom
they were acquainted. One of the victims died. The surviving victim and the heirs of the
deceased victim filed this civil suit against the mobilehome park, arguing it breached its
duty of care by allowing the stabber to return to the park after he had been previously
asked to leave due to his history of erratic behavior. The trial court granted the
mobilehome park’s motion for summary judgment, concluding the knife attack was not
sufficiently foreseeable. We affirm.