CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Sikai Fano Telea appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The trial court found defendant ineligible for relief because it concluded he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court also concluded defendant’s attempted murder convictions were ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.
On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court failed to require the prosecution to carry its burden of proof, prevented defendant from presenting additional evidence, and improperly relied on its recollection of the evidence. He further asserts he was deprived of due process due to judicial bias. We conclude the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to present evidence, and remand for the court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing under section 1170.95, subdivision (d).

Daniel Chavez-Estrella was convicted of carjacking after a jury trial in which the court found the victim, Maria Holguin (Holguin), unavailable and admitted her preliminary hearing testimony. On appeal to this court he challenged that decision, Holguin’s identification of Chavez-Estrella at a show-up and in court, the eyewitness jury instruction (CALCRIM No. 315) and the denial of his suppression and Romero motions. We affirmed.
Chavez-Estrella petitioned for Supreme Court review, reasserting his challenges to his conviction and asserting he was entitled to remand for resentencing pursuant to new sentencing provisions. The Court granted review and transferred the case to this court with directions to vacate our decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731 (Senate Bill 567)) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (Stats. 2021, ch. 695 (Assembly Bill 124)). We do so now.

In February 2016, while in a confused mental state, Robert James Vega shot and killed an off-duty police officer, who was also his de facto father-in-law and his son’s grandfather. Charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b), (c) & (d)), he entered dual pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). Vega claimed he killed Augustine Vegas (Augustine), whom he loved like a father, in a temporary state of psychosis associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from which he had suffered since returning from military service in Iraq in 2007. 
The prosecutor’s theory was that Vega’s psychotic state was induced by cannabis consumption and did not qualify as insanity under the law. (See §§ 25, 29.8.) Both psychotic conditions are relatively rare, but the jury sided with the prosecution.

Defendant Robert Castillo, Jr., pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and illegally possessing ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)) and was placed on two years’ felony probation. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of a gun and ammunition that was found after police officers searched a blanket that he had been lying on. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the officers conducted a weapons search based on their reasonable belief that Castillo was dangerous. We affirm the judgment.

In 2021, defendant Brett Stephen Amsbaugh filed a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition. The trial court denied the petition because Amsbaugh was convicted of two counts of attempted murder. The Legislature recently amended section 1170.95 to include attempted murder convictions.
Thus, we are reversing the trial court’s order denying Amsbaugh’s section 1170.95 petition and remanding with directions.

This is a wage and hour class action and representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code § 2698, et seq.). A more complete summary of the facts is contained in the consolidated companion opinion to this appeal (G058397, G058969; the companion opinion). Generally, plaintiffs alleged their employer, Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (Royalty), which is now known as Royalty Carpet Mills, LLC, failed to provide compliant meal and rest breaks. They asserted claims against Royalty for meal and rest break violations as well as several derivative claims. Following trial, the court awarded plaintiffs a $630,348.31 judgment in January 2020 (the judgment). Plaintiffs then filed a timely memorandum of costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5, requesting $48,896.52 in reimbursable costs. Royalty filed a motion to tax various items. Plaintiffs largely conceded and agreed to $18,586.95 in reductions.

Richard F. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22) in January 2022 terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing scheduled for May 12, 2022, as to his daughter, now 16-year-old E.F. Father contends the court erred in terminating reunification services because the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) failed to provide him reasonable reunification services. We deny the petition.

On July 19, 2019, a jury convicted defendant John-Paul Frank Schowachert of the attempted murder of Shane M. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1) and assault of Shane with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). As to count 1, the jury found defendant committed the offense willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation (§ 189, subd. (a)) and that defendant personally used a knife in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). As to both counts, the jury found defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon Shane (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 11 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) trial counsel’s failure to object to evidence regarding his prior prison history prejudiced his case and thus constituted ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation exists to support the finding the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated;

A jury convicted David Perez Jimenez of first degree murder of his wife, rejecting alternative theories that he was guilty of a lesser offense based on provocation. On appeal, Jimenez argues that there was (1) no substantial evidence of premeditation or deliberation and (2) the trial court’s jury instructions misled the jury as to the applicable test for provocation. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Johnny Martinez appeals two orders of the Riverside County Superior Court. One is the court’s summary denial of his petition made pursuant to section 1170.95 of the Penal Code seeking resentencing of convictions on one count of second degree murder in violation of section 187 and one count of first degree attempted murder in violation of sections 664 and 187. The other is the denial of his motion to correct his sentence made pursuant to rule 60(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. We affirm.

Marquell Dion Smith appeals from the summary denial of a petition to vacate his first degree murder conviction under Penal Code section 1170.95. The trial court found Smith was not entitled to relief, as a matter of law, because the jury that convicted him of murder returned a true finding on a robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation associated with the murder charge. The special-circumstance finding meant the jury found that Smith: (1) was the actual killer; (2) aided and abetted in the commission of the murder with an intent to kill; or (3) aided and abetted in the commission of the robbery while acting as a major participant and with reckless indifference to human life. (§ 190.2, subds. (b)–(d).)

Mar.C. (mother) and Man.C. (father), parents of the minors, appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) The parents claim the juvenile court erred in failing to find termination of parental rights was detrimental to and not in the best interests of the minors where tribal authorities indicated a preference for guardianship for the enrolled minor. We disagree and will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

R.R., mother of the minor (mother), challenges the juvenile court’s order at the contested prepermanency hearing continuing out-of-home placement of the minor and reunification services to both parents. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, subd. (e), 395.) Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the order for continued placement because the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) failed to demonstrate return of the minor would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor. She requests that this court reverse the juvenile court’s order and remand with directions to order the minor returned to her physical custody with family maintenance services.

Defendant Tyree Hudson pleaded no contest to transporting methamphetamine and was sentenced to four years in county jail after a violation of probation; the court also imposed a restitution fine. On appeal, defendant contends pursuant to the holding in People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the restitution fine must be stayed pending an ability to pay hearing. Finding defendant forfeited this argument, we affirm.