CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, Danny L. (the Minor) stipulates to commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The juvenile court imposed a number of conditions of probation pending the Minor’s actual commitment to DJJ. The commitment has taken place. The Minor contends the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to impose probation conditions on a minor who has been committed to DJJ. The Attorney General correctly concedes the court lacks jurisdiction to impose the conditions under the circumstances of this case. The parties agree the conditions must be stricken. We also agree.
The Minor admitted one count of gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd.(a)) and one count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23558, subd. (a)). At the disposition hearing, the court declared the Minor to be a ward of the court and committed the Minor to DJJ for a term of eight years four months. |
Estevan Steve Montelongo was found guilty of the first degree murder of his girlfriend, Michelle Hashtani (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The jury returned a true finding on an allegation that, in the commission of the murder, he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused death to a person (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court also found true an allegation that he suffered a prior conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which constituted a serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a prior strike (id., subds. (b)–(i)). The court sentenced Montelongo to prison for 75 years to life, plus 5 years.
Montelongo appeals the judgment and claims the trial court misunderstood the scope of its authority to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancement and, in its place, impose a lesser uncharged firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) or (c). |
Guillermo Samaniego Ramos appeals a judgment sentencing him to prison for 245 years to life after a jury found him guilty of sex crimes against three minors. He contends the trial court coerced verdicts by directing the jurors to deliberate further after they had repeatedly reported they were deadlocked on most counts. We reject this contention. An error in sentencing, however, requires we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
|
Over the Fourth of July holiday in 2019, Kevin Burgess strangled his estranged wife Jane Doe to unconsciousness two times, fashioned a noose and put it around her neck, prevented her from leaving the house, and told Jane’s young children he would kill her if they tried to leave the house to get help. He was convicted by a jury of assault, corporal injury to a spouse, false imprisonment by violence or menace, making a criminal threat, and misdemeanor willful cruelty to a child. At trial, the prosecution was permitted to present evidence of three uncharged acts of prior domestic violence, in which Burgess had physically isolated Jane, strangled her, and threatened to kill her.
Burgess appeals, claiming the trial court committed evidentiary error when it admitted evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109, subdivision (a)(1). |
In 2016, a jury found defendant Khot Panyanouvong guilty of first degree murder and the trial court found true allegations that defendant’s prior conviction qualified as a serious felony and a strike. The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 55 years to life and imposed various fines and fees. This court affirmed the judgment in May of 2020.
In January 2021, defendant filed a pro. per. petition asking the trial court to modify his sentence by striking the fines, fees, and assessments. Defendant cited People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, argued the items should be stricken because there was no finding he had the ability to pay them, and said his counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue on appeal. The trial court converted the restitution fine, the court facilities assessment, and the court security fee into jail time. Defendant appealed the trial court’s 2021 order. |
A jury convicted defendant Eric Raymond Field of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), grand theft (id., § 487, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor receiving stolen property (id., § 496, subd. (a)). The jury found true that a nonaccomplice was present in the residence during the burglary. (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) Defendant admitted three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant also admitted three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to strike two of the three prior strikes under section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. |
Defendant Tristan Demond Batten entered into a negotiated plea agreement with prosecutors in November 2016. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to first degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and two counts of second degree robbery, and admitted a firearm allegation. He also agreed to cooperate with the prosecution and testify truthfully against a codefendant and others. The prosecution, for its part, agreed that defendant would be permitted to withdraw his plea to the first degree murder charge upon satisfying his obligations under the agreement. That charge would be dismissed, and defendant would receive a stipulated sentence of nine years.
Plans changed with the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437, which became effective on January 1, 2019. (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4) (Senate Bill 1437.) |
A jury found defendant Joel Lee Williams guilty of a single count of possession of a weapon by an inmate and the trial court found true an allegation defendant had received a prior strike conviction. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request to strike the prior strike conviction under Penal Code section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). We will affirm the judgment.
|
After a jury found defendant Jose Israel Arellano guilty of willful infliction of corporal injury for pushing his ex-girlfriend, A.A., down a stairwell in their house, a potential witness claimed A.A. had fabricated her testimony and attempted to suborn him. Defendant moved for a new trial based on this newly discovered evidence and contends the trial court, in denying the motion, erred by finding the evidence merely cumulative and not credible. Agreeing the evidence is not credible, we affirm.
|
In an attempt to recreate an Internet video, defendant Elijah Ray Lambert shot his best friend, Miguel Martinez, while Martinez wore a bulletproof vest. The bullet clipped the vest and killed Martinez. Tried for murder, defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, and a prior strike was found true. He was sentenced to 12 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant raises several alleged evidentiary errors, including that the trial court improperly admitted opinion testimony and hearsay statements, allowed leading questions on direct and redirect examination, and sustained objections to questions during cross-examination. He argues the evidentiary errors, singularly and cumulatively, were prejudicial thereby requiring reversal. |
Dimitri Roger appeals from an order denying his motion to set aside the default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Maro Burunsuzyan. Burunsuzyan sued Roger for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy by false light portrayal, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, arising from an alleged incident in which Roger posted Burunsuzyan’s personal cell phone number to Roger’s social media account with directions for Roger’s followers to call Roger at that number. Burunsuzyan filed suit after allegedly receiving over 500 text messages and numerous calls, preventing her from using her cell phone. After Roger failed to file an answer, the clerk entered a default, and the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of Burunsuzyan.
|
In 2017, appellant Alfonso Barrientos met someone he thought was a 16-year-old girl online and arranged to have sex with her. The girl was in fact a police decoy. Appellant pled no contest to meeting a minor for lewd purposes in violation of Penal Code section 288.4, subdivision (b), which required him to register as a sex offender under section 290. In 2021, the superior court terminated appellant’s probation early, but denied his motion to terminate the registration requirement.
On appeal, appellant poses an equal protection challenge to section 290, asserting that registration for certain sex offenders is discretionary, and he should not be subject to mandatory registration because he did not interact with a real minor. We affirm. |
In 1997, defendant and appellant Manuel Rosales, Jr., was convicted by a jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and five counts of attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to life in state prison for a term of 54 years 8 months to life.
Defendant timely appealed his conviction, and on April 1, 1999, we modified the judgment to reflect a restitution fine of $5,000 and otherwise affirmed. (People v. Rodriguez (Apr. 1, 1999, B115165 [nonpub. opn.], at p. 24.) In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. Over the People’s opposition, the trial court found that defendant had established a prima facie case for relief, issued an order to show cause, and held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1170.95, subdivision (d). |
In 2013, defendant Marques Sayyed Binns and a codefendant were convicted of murder; Binns, who was the getaway driver, was prosecuted as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In 2019, after the Legislature abolished that theory of liability, Binns petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. In 2021, on remand from this court, the trial court granted the petition and resentenced Binns to the target offense of assault with a firearm.
On appeal, Binns argues that, based on his excess custody credits, his restitution fine should be deemed satisfied. The People concede the point, and we modify the judgment accordingly. Binns also argues that he should not be required to pay the victim restitution award because it was based on his murder conviction, which no longer stands, and his conduct underlying the assault conviction was not a substantial and proximate cause of the claimed financial losses. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023