CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
In 2007, appellant Ted Blackmon was convicted after a jury trial of the first degree premeditated murder of Damon Moore, with the special circumstance that the murder was intentional, committed while he was an active participant in a criminal street gang, and it was carried out to further the activities of the gang. He was also convicted of the attempted premeditated murder of Kathy Crump. The prosecution’s theory was that Blackmon intentionally killed Moore because the victim happened to be wearing a shirt in the color claimed by a rival gang. Blackmon was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
|
In 2012, a jury convicted petitioner Joseph Hendrix of the second degree murder of Jacob Ramirez (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and the attempted murder of Manuel G. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 2). The trial court sentenced petitioner on count 1 to a term of 15 years to life, and on count 2 to a consecutive term of seven years, with an additional consecutive term of 25 years to life on each count for a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)).
In 2019, petitioner filed a petition for resentencing on his murder conviction pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition on the ground petitioner was a major participant in the offense who acted with reckless indifference to human life, a disqualifying factor under section 1170.95, subdivision (a)(3). |
Plaintiff Phillip Ocaranza brought this medical malpractice and wrongful death action against defendants DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. dba Tulare Dialysis (Tulare Dialysis) and C.H.L. EMS, Inc. dba American Ambulance of Visalia (C.H.L./American Ambulance or American Ambulance of Visalia or American Ambulance), after the death of his mother, Dana Ocaranza, in Visalia. Dana Ocaranza died on August 5, 2017, shortly after two unrelated falls that occurred days apart at the Tulare Dialysis facility in Tulare (August 1, 2017) and Kaweah Delta Hospital in Visalia (August 4, 2017), respectively.
The first fall occurred on August 1, 2017, at the Tulare Dialysis facility in Tulare; Dana Ocaranza fell from a Hoyer lift and was admitted to Kaweah Delta Hospital in Visalia for treatment of injuries sustained in the fall. She suffered the second fall at Kaweah Delta Hospital on August 4, 2017. |
Appellant and defendant Christopher Lipsey, who was serving a life term in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), was convicted after a jury trial of violating Penal Code section 4501, subdivision (a), assault with a deadly weapon by a state prison inmate. He was sentenced to the second strike term of 22 years, consecutive to the indeterminate term he was already serving.
On appeal, defendant argues he could not be convicted of violating section 4501 because he was serving a life term at the time of the offense; that statute is not applicable to inmates serving life terms; and his conviction must be reduced to the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1). He also argues the trial court should have granted his section 1381 motion to dismiss the information because the district attorney did not timely file charges against him. |
Following a jury trial, defendant Brian Billings was found guilty of one count of taking a motor vehicle with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of title to and possession of the vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and three counts of dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2)). In this appeal, defendant only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions for dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime. Recently, defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing the sentence he received must now be vacated due to legislative changes made by Senate Bill No. 567 (Reg. Sess. 2020–2021) (Senate Bill 567). While we find substantial evidence exists to support the convictions, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand this case so that defendant may be resentenced. In all other respects, the judgement is affirmed.
|
Defendant Samantha Roque was convicted by jury of one count of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, in violation of Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (a). She was sentenced to the middle term of six years (§ 191.5, subd. (c)(1)) and was ordered to pay $7,500 in restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board; a $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1); a parole revocation restitution fine of $300 under section 1202.45, subdivision (a), suspended; a $40 court operations assessment under section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1); and a $30 court facilities fee under Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1).
Defendant claims there was no substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding of gross negligence; that the trial court erroneously precluded evidence related to the victim’s failure to use a seatbelt; that the trial court improperly denied probation and abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to the middle term; |
Appellant Jerry Lee Bivens was convicted of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)); two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)); shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246); and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). In addition, enhancement allegations were found true for the personal use of a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)) and the infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Bivens admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and he had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to a prison term of life with the possibility of parole plus 23 years.
|
A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Marquese Davion Cooper, of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code § 459, count 1.) The court thereafter found true allegations that defendant had suffered three prior strike convictions (§§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2), 667, subds. (c), (e)(2)(A)), three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 17 years in state prison on the prior conviction enhancements—three, consecutive, five-year terms on the serious felony conviction enhancements and one year each on the two prior prison term enhancements—plus an indeterminate term of 25 years to life under the three strikes law for the burglary conviction. (Cooper, supra, E070962.)
|
Defendant and appellant, John Anthony Morales, filed four petitions for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, the first of which the court denied, the second of which the court denied with prejudice, and the third and fourth of which the court dismissed. After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of facts, a statement of the case, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the superior court erred in denying defendant’s petition; and (2) whether the denial constituted prejudicial error. We affirm. Defendant was offered the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done. |
At a disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered that S.C. remain removed from the physical custody of her father, J.C. (Father). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).) Father raises four issues on appeal. First, Father contends the jurisdictional findings against him lack substantial evidence to support the elements of causation and substantial risk of serious physical harm. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) Second, Father asserts the petition was facially deficient because it failed to allege a substantial risk of serious physical harm. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) Third, Father asserts the juvenile court erred by failing to state the facts supporting the order removing S.C. from his custody. (§ 361, subd. (e).) Fourth, Father asserts that a non-offending parent may appeal from a disposition order. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
|
Defendant and appellant Dusty Matis Miskam appeals from the January 21, 2021 order of the superior court, dismissing his petition for resentencing on his 2017 conviction for voluntary manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 1170.95.) In an unpublished decision, we affirmed the order dismissing defendant’s petition on the ground that persons convicted of voluntary manslaughter were not entitled to relief under section 1170.95. (People v. Miskam (Nov. 4, 2021, E076504) [nonpub. opn.].)
The Supreme Court granted review on January 19, 2022, and transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our opinion and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Senate Bill 775) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2), which amended section 1170.95 to clarify, among other things, that persons convicted of voluntary manslaughter are eligible for resentencing under the statute. (Id. at §§ 1-2.) |
The City of Riverside approved the construction of a 300,000-plus square foot warehouse (the project). In response, Springbrook Heritage Alliance filed a petition under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenging the project. Springbrook argued that the City erroneously approved the project after adopting a mitigated negative declaration (MND) instead of conducting an environmental impact report (EIR). The trial court denied the petition.
Springbrook appealed. After we issued a tentative opinion but before we held oral argument, the parties informed us that they had reached a settlement. The parties then stipulated to dismissing the appeal with various terms. We exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits. |
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Timothy Condoluci of second degree murder for stabbing and killing his brother, Michael Condoluci, and the trial court sentenced him to 16 years to life. He argues the trial court prejudicially erred by denying his motion for a mistrial, inadequately admonishing the jury about a witness’s improper testimony, and failing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter. We affirm.
|
When Mi.Q. (Minor) was just over two months old, he sustained an unexplained fracture of his right arm above the elbow while he was in the exclusive care of his parents. Medical experts unanimously agreed that the injury was inflicted because an infant his age could not cause the injury himself. Three physicians opined that the injury was more likely than not related to physical abuse because they did not believe that the parents had offered a reasonable explanation for accidental trauma to Minor’s arm.
R.Q. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s order finding true allegations that Minor is a child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), declaring Minor a dependent, and placing him with his parents under a family maintenance case plan. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023