CA Unpub Decisions

During a traffic stop, police found a quantity of marijuana on the backseat of defendant Duc Vinh Do’s car. A jury convicted defendant of one felony count of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a))[1] and one misdemeanor count of possessing more than 28.5 grams (one ounce) of marijuana (§ 11357, subd. (c)) as a lesser-included offense of possession of marijuana for sale. The jury acquitted defendant of possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359; a felony) but rejected his defense based on the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (§ 11362.5) (CUA).

Plaintiff and appellant Rosa Simpson sued defendant and respondent Jiachang Zhang for dental malpractice, alleging his negligence in performing a dental implant procedure permanently damaged a nerve in her jaw. Zhang moved for summary judgment based on the one-year limitations period that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 establishes for all professional negligence claims against healthcare providers.[1] The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment against Simpson. We affirm.
Section 340.5’s one-year limitations period starts when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered both her injury and that someone’s wrongdoing likely caused it. Simpson testified she felt an electric shock as Zhang drilled the socket for her implant, and she immediately thought he had done something wrong. The next day Simpson returned to Zhang’s office to complain about the pain. After examining Simpson and taking an x-ray, Zhang apologized to Simpson, admitting the

Plaintiffs Gabrielle A. and Nicholas G. (the parents) and John A. and Gregory A. (the children) appeal from a judgment following the trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment by the County of Orange (the County) and social workers Laura McLuckey, Veronica Zuniga, Sandra Parrish-Rehoreg, Lauri Luchonok, Gale Westbrook, Elvia Villa, and Brian Satterfield.
Plaintiffs’ claims relate to the detention of John and Gregory for six months, specifically, the two months they were detained in Orange County before the case was transferred to Los Angeles. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the parents’ knowing and voluntary pleas of no contest to the jurisdictional allegations during dependency proceedings defeats their claims, and the social workers are entitled to immunity. Finally, even if we were to disregard the no contest pleas and the relevant immunity doctrines, defendants correctly argue they met their burden to establish they were

Defendant Moises Najera was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Abin Delgado.[1] A jury acquitted him of first degree murder, but returned a guilty verdict of second degree murder with a finding he used a deadly weapon in committing that offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 16 years to life.
On appeal, defendant claims the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser crime of attempted murder and by giving an inapplicable instruction on mutual combat. Finding these contentions lack merit, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Francisco Xavier Carbajal, Jr.,[1] was charged with assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1) [count 1]),[2] willful infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a) [count 2]), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1) [count 3]). In connection with counts 1 and 2, the information alleged he personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).
Defendant pled guilty to count 2. Later, the jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of attempted rape on count 1, found him guilty as charged on count 3, and found the special allegations true. Defendant received an aggregate sentence of eight years eight months: a principal term of four years on count 1 plus four years for infliction of great bodily injury; and a consecutive subordinate term of eight months on count 3. Execution of punishment on count 2 was stayed pursuant to section 654.

Dustin Leon Miller (defendant) received an aggregate sentence of 28 years eight months for convictions in five different criminal cases. He makes two contentions on appeal. First, pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), the trial court should have dismissed his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Second, in the fifth and most recent case, the court did not adequately advise him of the penal consequences of admitting the abovementioned prior. For the reasons set forth below, we reject these contentions.
The Attorney General asks us to remand the case for the limited purpose of amending the information to allege a prior serious conviction under Penal Code[1] section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and affording defendant the opportunity to either admit or contest the allegation. We reject the request to remand and, instead, strike the enhancement.

Robert Lee Griffin was convicted by jury of two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of sexual penetration of a child age 10 or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)). Griffin admitted a prior conviction and stipulated to a prior prison term allegation (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(I), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5., subd. (b)). Griffin was sentenced to a total aggregate term of 131 years to life.
On appeal, Griffin contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion and violated due process in admitting evidence of a prior 2006 misdemeanor sex crime and of data and images found on his computer; (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction on the “fresh complaint” doctrine; (3) that CALCRIM No. 1193 was an incorrect statement of law; and (4) that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting evidence regarding a prior complaint of sexual molestation by one of the

Defendant and appellant J.B. (Minor) appeals the denial of his request to seal his court and school records pursuant to former Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, subdivision (e).[1] In 2010 and 2011, Minor had three petitions filed against him pursuant to section 602 for three separate offenses. The third petition involved an incident on school grounds and was dismissed pursuant to a negotiated disposition in 2011. He successfully completed probation for the first two petitions and the juvenile court agreed to dismiss and seal the records for those two petitions pursuant to section 786. However, the juvenile court denied his request to seal education records for the third petition on the grounds that Minor had failed to establish he successfully completed probation on that petition, so it was not in a position to exercise its discretion for the dismissed petition.
Minor claims that the third petition, which was not adjudicated, was subject to section 786, subdi

Defendant Antawon Stubblefield was arrested after raping and sexually assaulting a 67-year-old woman in her apartment after climbing in through the bedroom window. After his arrest, he admitted the crimes, and DNA testing conducted on biological material collected demonstrated that defendant was the assailant. He was convicted by jury of five counts of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, forcible penetration by a foreign object, attempted forcible sodomy, and residential burglary, with a true finding that the rape was committed during the commission of a burglary. He then admitted an enhancement relating to the fact he committed the crimes while on his own recognizance in another case. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the rape, and a consecutive determinate term of 11 years for the remaining counts and special allegations. Defendant appealed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, in July 2014, defendant and appellant Luis Fernando Contreras pleaded no contest to selling, transporting, or offering to sell cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352. In return, defendant was placed on formal probation for a period of 36 months on various terms and conditions, including serving 120 days in county jail on weekends. Approximately 18 months later, in January 2016, defendant filed a motion for early termination of probation and dismissal of his conviction pursuant to Penal Code[1] sections 1203.3 and 1203.4. The People opposed the motion, noting that the trial court lacked discretion and that termination of defendant’s probation after he had only served half of the 36 months would be a serious deviation from the terms of the plea agreement. Following a hearing in March 2016, the trial court agreed with the People and denied defendant’s motion, finding the court did not have jurisdiction to terminate probation earl

A second amended felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Dayveon Jommone Dockery with (1) three counts of attempted murder under Penal Code[1] sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a), with several firearm enhancements (counts 1-3); (2) three counts of assault with a firearm under section 245, subdivision (a)(2), with firearm allegations (counts 4-6); (3) street terrorism under section 186.22, subdivision (a) (count 7); and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon under section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (counts 8-9). The complaint also alleged that defendant committed all of the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and that he had a prior strike conviction for robbery.

In 2013, a jury convicted Van Keyshone Rollen of one count of attempting to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code,[1] § 136.1, subd. (b)(1); one count of misdemeanor battery (§ 242) and one count of misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).
In 2016, Rollen filed a petition in the trial court seeking to have his felony conviction reclassified as a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18; the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act). The trial court found that the offense in section 136.1 is not one of the offenses listed in section 1170.18. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. Rollen filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Rollen the opportunity to file his own brief

A petition was filed in the juvenile court alleging that Mohamed F. (the Minor) committed two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602). Following trial, the juvenile court found the allegations to be true. The Minor was declared a ward of the court and placed on probation in the home of his parents.
The Minor appeals contending the trial court erred in admitting several of the victim's out-of-court statements in evidence pursuant to Evidence Code[1] section 1360. Specifically, the Minor contends the trial court failed to find sufficient foundation to establish reliability of the victim's statements. We disagree. Based upon our review of the record, it is clear the trial court found the victim's statements, in and out of court, to be truthful and credible. The court found the victim, then a four-year-old child, would not have any way to know about the sexual acts she spontaneously describe

Juan Martinez sued numerous entities seeking to prevent a foreclosure sale of his home based primarily on an alleged invalid assignment and securitization of his secured loan. The court entered judgment against Martinez after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend on Martinez's second amended complaint against two defendants: CitiMortgage, Inc. and Citibank, N.A. Representing himself, Martinez appeals from this judgment. We affirm.