CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendants and appellants Alejandro and Oswaldo Ballesteros guilty of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and found true gang allegations. To prove the gang allegations, a gang expert testified that in forming his opinion defendants are gang members he relied on field identification cards (“FI cards”). At least some of those FI cards were displayed to the jury, even though details in them were not admissible. On appeal, defendants raise numerous contentions about the FI card evidence. We conclude that the trial court erred in allowing the cards to be shown to the jury and that the error was prejudicial. We therefore reverse the true findings on the gang enhancement allegations, although we reject or need not address defendants’ remaining contentions.

D.H. (appellant) appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.

Defendant Daniel Joseph Hillman appeals after the trial court granted his petition to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 and resentenced him. He contends the court erred in imposing full sentences for three misdemeanors, to run consecutively with a felony sentence. We shall affirm.

Defendant Alfredo Grimaldo was charged by felony complaint with two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4). He pleaded no contest to the first count, and the second count was dismissed. As called for in the plea agreement, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant probation, conditioned on service of six months in county jail and payment of various fines and fees. Defendant also was to be eligible to have his offense declared a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b)(3), after 18 months of successful probation.

Defendant Fortino Maldonado Pena appeals from a judgment entered upon his no contest plea to three counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211; 212.5, subd. (c)) and one count of false imprisonment. (§ 236, 237.) He also admitted being armed with a handgun during the commission of two of the robberies. (§ 12022.1, subd. (a)(1).) The crimes took place at three different jewelry stores; two of them took place at defendant’s direction, while in the third he was a direct participant. At the plea hearing defendant stated that he understood that the maximum sentence he could receive if all the counts of the information were established would be 52 years, and his plea agreement stated a maximum for the pleaded counts of 20 years 8 months.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. William Jefferson Powell IV, judge. Affirmed.
Elizabeth K. Horowitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant is serving a six-year sentence for stealing his cousin’s car at gunpoint, with a strike prior. We affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Lidia Ibarra of furnishing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) (People v. Ibarra (Feb. 18, 2015, C072556) [nonpub. opn.] (Ibarra).) The trial court sustained three prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and sentenced defendant to nine years in state prison (Ibarra, supra, C072556). We affirmed the conviction but reversed the prison term priors for insufficient evidence and remanded for specific additional findings as to one requirement. (Ibarra, supra, C072556.) On remand, defendant asked the court to find two of the prior prison term allegations not true, because their underlying convictions were previously reduced to misdemeanors pursuant to section 1170.18.

A jury found defendant Melissa Beth Chandler guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378, subd. (a)), possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 11364, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)), possession of Alprazolam (§ 11350, subd. (a)), and possession of hydrocodone (§ 11350, subd. (a)). After granting defendant’s motion to strike the possession of methamphetamine conviction, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for a term of three years with various conditions, including the condition she serve 364 days in local custody.

Plaintiffs Elena Delgadillo and Jesus Cortes appeal an order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendant United States Liability Insurance Company (USLI) without leave to amend. We shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant S.V. (minor) appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his motion to seal his records held by Riverside City College (RCC) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786. On appeal, minor argues that because Riverside City College Police Department (RCCPD) responded to the scene and RCCPD is a law enforcement agency within the meaning of section 786, subdivision (a), because RCC is a public agency within the meaning of section 786, subdivision (e)(2), and sealing the college’s record of the dismissed petition would benefit minor, this court should remand the matter and instruct the juvenile court to order minor’s records with RCCPD and RCC sealed. The People agree that a remand is appropriate.

The trial court granted defendant and respondent Lamont Collins’s motion to dismiss a criminal complaint filed against him, for denying his right to a speedy trial under the California Constitution. The People appeal from the court’s orders granting defendant’s motion and dismissing the case. For the reasons set forth post, we reverse the trial court’s orders with directions to reinstate the charges against defendant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Collette C. Cavalier and Elizabeth M. Kuchar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In June 2014 defendant and appellant Trumaine Thompson, a convicted felon, set up a drug deal with A.Z. at the Hemet Motel. Defendant was to purchase heroin valued at over $2,000 from A.Z.; he brought his girlfriend and a friend with him to help. Instead of paying A.Z. the money, he held her at gunpoint while the friend held her boyfriend N.A. at gunpoint, beat her with the gun, and stole the heroin from her. Defendant was convicted of robbery in concert, possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of assault with a firearm.

R.G. (father) and B.G. (mother) appeal from a dependency jurisdictional order finding that the juvenile court had jurisdiction over their 16-year-old son, R.G., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). Father and mother contend the juvenile court erred in not dismissing the dependency petition when it found that conditions justifying the initial assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed at the time of the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. We agree, and reverse.

This case involves a domestic disturbance and the subsequent evasion of the police. Defendant Quincy A. Peoples was charged with three felonies; he was convicted of two misdemeanors. On appeal, defendant agues his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to timely object to portions of his wife’s statement to police. We find no prejudice and affirm.