CA Unpub Decisions

David Anaya appeals a judgment of conviction after he expressly waived his constitutional rights and pleaded guilty to the infliction of corporeal injury to a current or former spouse or cohabitant, and admitted suffering two prior strike enhancements and serving three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced Anaya to an agreed-upon term of six years in prison. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended), a $40 court security assessment, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment, among other fines and fees. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45, 1465.8, subd. (a), Gov. Code, § 70373.) The court also ordered victim restitution and awarded Anaya 1393 days of presentence custody credit. On the prosecutor’s motion, the court dismissed remaining allegations and a second charged count.

Camillo Gonzales appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)) and his subsequent admission that he violated his probation conditions.
We appointed counsel to represent Gonzales on this appeal. After examination of the record, his counsel filed an opening brief requesting the court to make an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

A jury convicted appellant of three counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). At a bifurcated trial, the jury also found true a number of prior conviction enhancements: that appellant had suffered (1) three prior “serious felony” or “strike” convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12 (a)-(d)); (2) three “serious felony” five-year prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and (3) eight one-year prison prior convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

A jury convicted appellant of three counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). At a bifurcated trial, the jury also found true a number of prior conviction enhancements: that appellant had suffered (1) three prior “serious felony” or “strike” convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12 (a)-(d)); (2) three “serious felony” five-year prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and (3) eight one-year prison prior convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

Appellants Regina Rudyak and Ginadan Capital, LLC appeal from an order imposing discovery sanctions in the amount of $20,492.50 after they unsuccessfully opposed a motion to compel answers and the production of documents at an oral deposition. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j).) Appellants contend the Civil Discovery Act (Discovery Act) (§ 2016.010 et seq.) does not authorize monetary sanctions against nonparties and, on that basis alone, they argue the order must be reversed. Contrary to Appellants’ contention, monetary sanctions are authorized “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel,” including a nonparty witness who has been ordered to testify pursuant to a deposition subpoena.

After the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (District) approved an application by Grist Creek Aggregates, LLC (Grist Creek) for a permit to construct a “Crumb Rubber Heating and Blending Unit” for the production of rubberized asphalt, Friends of Outlet Creek (Friends), a neighborhood environmental group, appealed to the District’s Hearing Board (Hearing Board or Board). The four members of the Board who considered the appeal split evenly on their vote, and as a consequence, the Board stated no further action would be taken, leaving the permit in place. Friends filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the trial court, claiming that Grist Creek should have conducted an environmental review and that the District and Hearing Board violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and District regulations by failing to order Grist Creek to conduct one.

Jessika Alcantara pled nolo contendere to being an accessory to a robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 32, 211) committed by Joshua Lee Davenport, her ex-husband and the father of her children. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Alcantara on probation with various conditions, including a condition barring contact with Davenport. Alcantara contends the probation condition is overbroad and unduly interferes with her constitutional right to association.
We affirm.

Dana Moffatt died on November 10, 2010. More than four and a half years later, appellants George Moffatt (Dana’s ex-husband) and George Simpson (when referred to collectively, appellants) filed a complaint for breach of contract to make a will against respondent John Balquist, trustee of the Dana Moffatt 2005 Revocable Trust and executor of Dana’s estate. The claim stemmed from an alleged promise by Dana to grant appellants a life estate in her house in exchange for them providing care for her until her death.

Defendant Adrian Sampaga appeals from orders issued on March 10, 2016, specifically: (1) an order revoking probation and imposing a felony sentence on an attempted burglary conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664), which triggered a “probation revocation restitution fine” (§ 1202.44); and (2) an order granting his petition for recall of sentence under section 1170.18 and reducing his conviction to a misdemeanor.

Defendant Peter Anthony Farnese appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, after a jury trial, of assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, he contends comments made by a prospective juror during voir dire likely influenced other jurors, thereby denying him his constitutional rights to confrontation and an impartial jury. He further argues the trial court erred by refusing defense counsel’s request to instruct the jury regarding lawful defense of another. Finding no error, we shall affirm.

A jury found defendant and appellant, Randy Guzman, guilty as charged of the premeditated murder of Donnie Reed in count 1 (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and the premediated attempted murder of Jason Pierce in count 2 (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found defendant personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, in the commission of both offenses (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury on Pierce in count 2 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder, plus life in prison with a minimum parole eligibility period of seven years for the attempted murder, plus five years for the sentencing enhancements.

Sean A. (father) and Desiree B. (mother) appeal from an order of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, terminating their parental rights with respect to their child, M.B. We affirm.

Alajandro Valasquez (also known as Alex Neiman) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of forcible rape (count 1 (Elizabeth W.), Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)); one count of forcible sodomy (count 2 (Elizabeth W.), § 286, subd. (c)(2)); two counts of aggravated kidnapping (count 3 (Leslie C.), count 10 (Krystle L.), § 209, subd. (b)(1)); four counts of forcible oral copulation (count 4 (Leslie C.), count 9 (Norma G.), count 12 (Krystle L.), count 15 (Elizabeth W.), § 288a, subd. (c)(2)); and one count of assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy, and oral copulation (count 16 (Krystle L.), § 220, subd. (a)). The jury further found true the multiple victim allegations as to counts 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, and 15 (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)), the kidnapping allegations as to counts 4 and 12 (§667.61, subds. (a), (d)), and a personal firearm use allegation as to count 9 (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)).

On March 19, 2015, about 9:00 a.m., Jeffery Deandre Davis (Davis) entered the JS Liquor Store at 1005 West Century Boulevard in Los Angeles and stole a bag of chips. Davis was well-known to the store’s owner, Kevin Choi. Davis had frequented the store for years and shoplifted from the establishment many times. Wayne Berry, a store employee, also knew Davis. Berry had worked at the store for six years before Choi bought it. Berry first noticed Davis back in 2009, when Davis stole beer from the store. At all times in question, Davis had been and remained banned from the store due to his conduct.