CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
Rayon Jeremiah Norwood was convicted of nine crimes, with gun and gang enhancements, in connection with a home invasion robbery that entailed torture and shooting of an elderly resident. After an initial appeal, this court reversed one conviction and struck three prior prison term enhancements. It also remanded the case for the trial court to clarify its sentence on count 2—80 years to life for robbery of an inhabited dwelling in concert with others—and to consider its newly granted discretion to strike the previously imposed gun and prior serious felony enhancements. (People v. Norwood (June 11, 2020; F076664) [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand, the trial court declined to strike any of the gun or prior conviction enhancements. It then resentenced Norwood on all counts, including a term of 78 years to life in prison on count 2. Norwood contends that the basis for the court’s sentence on count 2 remains unclear and unauthorized, warranting another remand. |
Defendant Zack Sanchez stands convicted of assault on a peace officer with force likely to cause great bodily injury. On appeal, he contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the force used was likely to cause great bodily injury, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement pursuant to Miranda, and (3) we should correct a clerical error in the sentencing minute order. The People disagree on the first two accounts, but agree that we should correct the clerical error. We order the clerical error corrected. In all other respects, we affirm.
|
Roland Bernard Campbell (defendant) was convicted by jury of robbery and aggravated assault. He claims the jury should have been instructed on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery. He further contends two prior prison term enhancements have been invalidated by Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136). We reject the first claim. The second claim is appropriately conceded by the People. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing.
|
In 2012, appellant Nicholas Junior Castaneda was tried with codefendants Steven Anthony Pack and Jose Tito Barajas for the murder of Kevin Argueta and the attempted murder of several other individuals. Castaneda was convicted of second degree murder, two counts of assault with a firearm, grossly negligent discharge of a firearm, and actively participating in a criminal street gang. The court sentenced Castaneda to prison for a total of 20 years eight months to life.
In 2018, the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437) into law, restricting the circumstances under which a person can be liable for murder under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.) In 2019, Castaneda filed a petition to have his murder conviction vacated pursuant to section Penal Code section 1170.95. |
Between October 2008 and July 2017, defendant Pedro Salinas sexually abused his girlfriend’s young daughter and the daughter’s cousin multiple times. A jury convicted defendant of multiple counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14 years of age (some committed by force), sodomy of a child under 14 years of age, forcible sodomy of a minor, and sexual penetration of a minor. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 122 years to life in prison, including five separate terms of 15 years to life, pursuant to the “One Strike” law (Pen. Code, § 667.61).
Defendant contends on appeal (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove that the victim was under 14 years of age at the time of the lewd act charged in count 5; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove forcible sexual penetration of a child 14 years of age or older, as charged in count 12, because the act of penetration involved use of defendant’s penis which is not a foreign object for purposes of the statute; |
A jury found Anthony Henry Balangue (defendant) guilty on two counts of attempted premeditated murder. He was accordingly sentenced to two consecutive indeterminate prison terms of seven years to life. The parole ineligibility periods were doubled to 14 years because of a prior strike conviction, resulting in an aggregate indeterminate sentence of 28 years to life. Defendant received a consecutive aggregate determinate term of 25 years based on gang allegation findings, firearm enhancements, and a status enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction.
Defendant’s claims on appeal include challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the wording of the jury instructions, and the competence of his trial counsel. We agree the gang findings lack evidentiary support, which also invalidates the firearm enhancements. A prior prison term enhancement not addressed at sentencing or in the parties’ briefs must also be reversed for insufficient evidence. |
Defendant and appellant Eddie Lee Hampton appeals from the superior court’s order denying his petition to vacate his murder conviction and obtain resentencing relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. In our prior opinion, we affirmed the superior court’s ruling, after which defendant successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
The Supreme Court transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our earlier opinion and reconsider our decision “in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) and People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952” (Lewis). We vacated our decision on February 25, 2022, and allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs limited to matters arising after the previous decision in this matter. In his supplemental brief, defendant contends the matter should be remanded for further proceedings because the trial court improperly engaged in factfinding at the prima facie stage to determine that he was the actual killer. |
In September 2020, the court held a remote preliminary hearing due to the Covid-19 emergency orders. Boyd’s objection to the remote hearing was overruled. Boyd was held to answer on the complaint.
In October 2020, Boyd filed a motion under section 995 to set aside the information because the preliminary hearing was conducted remotely. The motion was denied In April 2021, Boyd pleaded guilty to all charges and admitted all allegations, pursuant to an agreement with the trial court for a sentence of 13 years in prison. Boyd was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Boyd filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. |
In 2005, a jury found petitioner Derrick Courtney guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) with a finding that a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.2, subd. (a)(1)). Later, after finding true a special circumstance allegation that defendant had a prior conviction for first degree murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2)), the trial court sentenced petitioner to state prison for life without the possibility of parole plus an additional year for the section 12022.2 finding. (People v. Courtney (Jan. 4, 2008, C051548) [nonpub. opn.].)
Petitioner’s jury was instructed that it could find him guilty of murder pursuant to the “natural and probable consequences doctrine” if it concluded he aided and abetted the target offense of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. |
In 1990, defendant Richard Lee Keenum pled no contest to violating Penal Code section 4573.6. He was originally granted probation but was then sentenced to prison for three years after violating probation.
Defendant filed a petition in July 2021 to dismiss the judgment pursuant to section 1203.4, and the trial court denied it in August 2021. Defendant appealed. Defendant’s appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. |
M.M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying his request to change the court’s previous order terminating reunification services with Mi.M. (minor) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388), terminating his parental rights as to minor (§ 366.26), and freeing minor for adoption. Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his section 388 request in light of the substantial change in his circumstances and resulting ability to safely care for minor. We discern no such abuse. Accordingly, we will affirm.
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Mohamed D. Ahmadi has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) |
Defendant Jarvell Deandrae Smart appeals from the denial of his postjudgment motion for a juvenile fitness/transfer proceeding, which he filed in propria persona. At the time defendant filed his motion he was represented by counsel for a postjudgment hearing pursuant to In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, and his counsel declined to file the motion on defendant’s behalf. In this court, appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Although appellate counsel mentions in his Wende brief that one issue may be whether the refusal to file and argue defendant’s motion in the trial court constituted a denial of the right to assistance of counsel, appellate counsel did not argue the merits of the issue.
|
Defendant Langima’a Faulalo challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code) based on changes made to the felony-murder rule by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437). Defendant contends the trial court erred in relying on the jury’s special circumstance finding to deny his petition. We affirm the judgment.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023