CA Unpub Decisions

A trial court may, if proper procedures are followed, promulgate and adopt rules that apply only within a particular courtroom. They are an effective way of assuring orderly progress through the system of every case. These local-local rules may even impose stringent penalties for noncompliance. But if a court adopts such rules, the court must follow them, may only impose the penalty authorized for noncompliance, and must comply with statutory and due process requirements before imposing that penalty.
The trial court in this marital dissolution case adopted local local rules but did not comply with them. The court adopted a standing order which authorized, as the only penalty for noncompliance, monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5. One of the litigants, Oliver Matar, who is the ex husband of the Dania Kanj, the other litigant, violated the standing order by not exchanging his trial exhibits at the pretrial conference.

David Lee, Jr., Corey Ray Johnson, and Joseph Kevin Dixon (defendants) were charged and convicted of committing multiple offenses, including three counts of first degree premeditated murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), § 189) with multiple murder and gang special circumstances (§ 190.2, subds. (a)(3), (a)(22)). They were each sentenced to three consecutive terms of life in prison without possibility of parole, and their murder convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2020, appellant Lee filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 and alleged his murder convictions were based on the felony-murder rule and/or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and he was not the actual killer. The superior court denied Lee’s petition, and he filed this appeal.
On appeal, Lee’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record.

Defendant Shawn Curtis Andrade pled no contest to child abuse and misdemeanor driving under the influence in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F19900807, and no contest to a lewd or lascivious act with a minor under 14 years of age and sexual battery by restraint in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F20902043 (both appealed in court of appeal case No. F082308).
As to both cases, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have conducted an independent review. Finding that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist, we affirm.

Defendant Marquis Wayne Candler killed Jamore Holliday and wounded Holliday’s girlfriend, T.N., after shooting them in the apartment where they all lived.
A Kern County jury convicted defendant of first degree murder of Holliday (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)) and attempted premeditated murder of T.N. (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 188 years to life in prison.
Defendant raises several issues on appeal. First, he claims the trial court erred when it denied his respective motions for mistrial and new trial after the jury mistakenly received an unredacted audio recording and transcript of a jail call between defendant and his brother. Next, defendant claims the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence certain items related to his sister’s 911 phone call after the shooting. Additionally, defendant argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury on consciousness of guilt.

Defendant and appellant Yuri Mondragon appeals from an August 12, 2019 judgment of the Kern County Superior Court entered in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Mario and Yolanda Rivera. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.

In 2004, appellant Wenselado Martinez was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, with the burglary/felony murder and multiple-murder special circumstances found true. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison without possibility of parole.
In 2019, Martinez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, later deemed a petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, and alleged he was entitled to relief because he was not the actual killer, and his murder convictions were based on the felony-murder rule. The superior court denied the petition.
On appeal, Martinez’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm.

On February 17, 2019, defendant Anthony Daniel Gonzales, was found guilty of 16 separate counts involving three different victims. In this appeal, defendant challenges the sentences imposed for two of these counts. Initially, defendant only questioned whether the charging document provided adequate notice that a conviction of count 1 could lead to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. After this case was fully briefed, defendant was given permission to file a supplemental brief on whether he is entitled to be resentenced following the passage of Senate Bill No. 567 (Reg. Sess. 2021−2022) (Senate Bill 567), resulting in the amendment of Penal Code section 1170. While we conclude defendant’s conviction and sentence for the crime charged in count 1 was appropriate, we remand this matter for the trial court to resentence defendant because the sentence imposed for his conviction in count 6 violates the newly amended section 1170.

Zachery Goodwin was charged with murder, attempted robbery, and shooting at an occupied vehicle after he shot and killed a man in a vehicle during an attempted robbery gone wrong. At the trial, jurors were instructed on second degree murder with two alternate theories: implied malice or felony murder based on shooting at an occupied vehicle.
The jury found Goodwin guilty of second degree murder but did not specify the murder theory it relied upon. It also found him guilty of the remaining charges.
On appeal, Goodwin raises several claims separately challenging the convictions and the resulting sentence. Most of these claims lack merit, but one demands closer inspection. Goodwin claims the court prejudicially erred in its instructions because felony murder was improperly predicated on shooting at an occupied vehicle. The People concede the error but argue it is harmless.
Our review of the record compels us to find the error prejudicial.

In 2009, a jury convicted Franklin Figueroa of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Two serious felony prior convictions were also found true. Figueroa was sentenced to prison for 15 years to life, plus 10 years for the serious felony priors.
Figueroa appealed and this Court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion, People v. Figueroa, D055559 (Nov. 19, 2010).
In 2021, Figueroa filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court denied the petition by written order. The court found from the review of the record that the trial jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences of felony murder. Thus, the court found Figueroa was not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95 as a matter of law.
Figueroa filed a timely notice of appeal.

D.C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders suspending visitation between her and the minors. She contends the juvenile court applied the wrong standard in finding visits by mother would be detrimental to the minors. We will affirm.

Defendant and appellant Paul Joseph Burnette appeals the trial court’s denial of his Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) motion to set aside a default judgment in a Health and Safety Code section 11488.5, subdivision (b) civil forfeiture action. Representing himself on appeal, defendant has filed a brief with this court that raises various federal and statutory challenges to the forfeiture proceeding. Since defendant filed the motion to set aside more than six months from the entry of the default judgment, the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant his motion. We shall therefore dismiss the appeal.

On separate occasions, about five months apart, defendant Alfonso Henry Martinez fired multiple rounds from a vehicle at individuals he apparently felt had slighted him. In the first incident, he opened fire on four minors, Z., J.R., K., and F., after he and the boys fought in front of his house. J.R. was hit twice, once in the head; Z. was hit once in the leg. Both survived their injuries, but J.R.’s head wound required surgical removal of one of his eyes. In the second incident, defendant fired at two young women, S. and J.A., who were in another vehicle, after he tried to engage S. in conversation. When she made clear she did not want to talk to him, he opened fire on their vehicle. Fortunately, no one was hit in the second shooting.
Defendant was charged with nine counts arising from the first incident, five counts arising from the second incident, and four additional counts based on conduct during his arrest.

Defendant Manuel Anthony Penna appeals from his convictions for unlawful possession of ammunition, mayhem, battery, and assault stemming from incidents on two different dates. In the first incident, defendant was alleged to have threatened his estranged wife, Theresa Doe (Theresa), who called 911. Sheriff’s deputies responding to the call eventually found defendant at his mother’s house, and a subsequent search of the house’s garage yielded multiple types of ammunition. In the second incident, defendant got into a fight with T.J., during which defendant bit off one of T.J.’s fingers.
On appeal, defendant claims: (1) the trial court erred by failing to suppress all evidence seized during the search of the garage on the basis that he did not voluntarily consent to the search, (2) insufficient evidence supported his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition, (3) the trial court abused its discretion by consolidating the charges from the two separate incidents,

This case is based on conversations between high school students. C.C. attended high school with G.O., B.L., and I.F. He spoke with his three classmates about guns and school shootings. He showed G.O. a “to do list” of people he wanted to shoot, including students, teachers and school officials. He told I.F. about how he would orchestrate a school shooting and shared his list of intended victims. He spoke with B.L., who shared her own to do list. After a math teacher confiscated C.C.’s school-issued laptop, a search history that included a Google search for “school shooting simulator” was discovered as well as C.C.’s to do list and notes alluding to a school shooting. When questioned by a school resource officer, C.C. said he was just joking. I.F. was not afraid because she did not believe he would carry out a school shooting. G.O. originally thought C.C. was joking, but became scared when he told her not to attend school because he was going to shoot up their English class