CA Unpub Decisions

While defendant Armando Arias Gonzalez was serving a life sentence for second degree murder, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 1-4), which amended the law governing murder liability under felony-murder and natural and probable consequences theories and provided a new procedure under Penal Code section 1170.95 for eligible defendants to petition for recall and resentencing.
Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95, which the trial court denied on constitutional grounds without reaching the merits of his petition. Defendant appealed and we reversed, finding Senate Bill 1437 did not unconstitutionally amend various propositions or judicial doctrines. (People v. Gonzalez (Oct. 28, 2020, C090219) [nonpub. opn.].) We remanded the matter for further proceedings under section 1170.95.

Defendant Melvin Smith appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Defendant contends the trial court incorrectly engaged in factfinding when evaluating his prima facie eligibility under the statute and prematurely denied his petition as a result. We will reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings.

Appointed counsel for defendant Timothy Hugh Hall 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.) In this appeal from the denial of postconviction relief under Penal Code section 1473.7, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. We will dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

This case arises out of decedent’s treatment for prostate cancer at a Kaiser medical facility. Decedent died in May 2015, and this action was filed in May 2018 against various Kaiser entities, decedent’s primary care physician, and three additional doctors and a nurse who were involved in his cancer treatment. In 2019, decedent’s wife, their children, and their daughter-in-law filed the operative complaint, which added three pharmaceutical companies and two additional nurses as defendants. The pharmaceutical defendants included the two companies that allegedly manufactured Lupron, and a third company that allegedly manufactured Effexor.
This is the second appeal in this case.

Defendant Josue Gonzalez appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, corporal injury on a spouse, and lesser-included simple assaults. Defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction as to the assault with a deadly weapon conviction, as there were at least two assaultive acts that could constitute the crime. The People claim the assaultive acts were committed as part of a continuous course of conduct and therefore a unanimity instruction was not required. We conclude any error was harmless.

Defendant Dai Nguyen appeals from an order denying his postjudgment petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Defendant’s appointed counsel found no arguable issues and filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to independently review the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant filed a supplemental brief complaining about appellate counsel’s performance and claiming the trial court erred in denying his petition as the jury was instructed on both felony murder and natural and probable consequences. After examining the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.

Responding to a report of a structure fire, police and fire department personnel arrived at defendant Stevan Dre Stewart’s apartment. The apartment was filled with smoke and a fire alarm was sounding. Firefighters found defendant, who was on probation at the time, and his girlfriend unconscious in bed and escorted them out. Defendant, who seemed a bit “out of it,” walked around outside, followed by police Sergeant Jeffrey Schmidt. While the fire department was still working in the apartment, defendant attempted to go back inside. Schmidt grabbed defendant by the arm to stop him from reentering the apartment, and defendant spun around and raised his arms in what Schmidt deemed to be an aggressive posture. Schmidt took defendant to the ground and police subdued him. The People filed a petition for violation of probation, alleging two counts of resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer. The trial court sustained the petition as to one count.

A jury found defendant Stefawn Taylor guilty of three counts of robbery and related crimes on three separate days. The jury was unable to reach an agreement as to whether defendant used a knife in the robbery of his second victim, or whether he assaulted that victim with a knife. The jury found true an allegation that defendant had used a knife while committing the third robbery and related attempted robberies, but it was unable to reach a verdict as to the guilt of his alleged codefendant (hereafter J.L.) in that crime.
At a bifurcated trial, the jury found an allegation that defendant had two prior convictions for robbery within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (a) and (b) through (i) (strikes) true, which meant defendant was subject to a sentencing enhancement of 25 years to life for each of the current offenses under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(A)(ii). (Unspecified statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code.)

Gilbert Raymond Loza and Jaime Jauregui (defendants) appeal from orders of the superior court denying their petitions to vacate their felony-murder convictions after an evidentiary hearing. Defendants argue that the record does not support the superior court’s finding that they were major participants in the crime and acted with reckless indifference to human life. We disagree with defendants’ arguments and affirm.

Plaintiff and Appellant Cecily Fleming appeals the judgment of the trial court following its order sustaining Defendant and Respondent Los Angeles Unified School District’s demurrer to her third amended complaint without leave to amend. The basis for the decision was that Fleming’s claims were not timely asserted. Fleming contends that her claims should have survived demurrer because (1) they were asserted within the applicable statutory period, (2) the time to assert the claims was tolled, (3) the claims related back to the commencement of her related administrative proceeding, and (4) the applicable statutory period restarted when she commenced a new administrative proceeding. We disagree and affirm. Because the reasons for our decision render it moot, we further deny LAUSD’s request for judicial notice.

Mary Andrenetta Anderson (Anderson) underwent surgery at PIH Health Hospital–Whittier (PIH) to implant a medical device that prevents a pulmonary embolism. She sued PIH for medical malpractice for failing to obtain her informed consent and causing her to suffer years of pain from the implantation. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Anderson failed to create a triable issue of fact in response to PIH’s expert opinions. Anderson appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.

Sean Richson appeals the denial of his petition for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95, Proposition 57, and Senate Bill No. 1391. We reverse.

In a 19-count indictment, the prosecution jointly charged Appellants Sheldon McMorries, David Solorio and Ronald Lopez with the murder of William “Tiny” Knight and other offenses, including attempted murder, conspiracy, and extortion. Appellants were tried jointly before a single jury. The jury found them guilty of the first-degree murder of Knight and convicted them as charged on all other counts.
Appellants now challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a number of their convictions and contend the trial court erroneously: declined to sever McMorries’ trial, admitted prejudicial expert testimony on the meaning of gang code, committed instructional error, and failed to grant their motions for mistrial. They also request we review the trial court’s in-camera Pitchess evaluation and correct the abstracts of judgment to delete certain fines and fees, or remand for a hearing on their ability to pay the fines and fees pursuant to People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 11

L.H. (mother) seeks extraordinary writ relief from a January 13, 2022 order that denied her reunification services for her seven-year-old son K.H. (the child) and set a hearing to consider termination of her parental rights and the child’s permanent placement under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Pending our resolution of the petition, mother requests a temporary stay of the section 366.26 hearing set for May 5, 2022. Real party in interest Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (agency) opposes the petition.
Mother challenges the juvenile court’s denial of reunification services under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11).