CA Unpub Decisions

Louis Arriaga is the president and director of A&A, a California business that provides security services, principally armed security guards, to other businesses. A&A employed Jason Lara and Jose Segura as armed security guards. At the same time, Lara and Segura owned their own security guard business, Maddison Group. While Lara and Segura were still employed by A&A, A&A’s primary client, Dave & Buster’s, terminated its security services contract with A&A and entered a security services contract with Maddison Group.
In May 2017, Arriaga filed a business tort action (the Arriaga action ) against Lara, Segura, and Maddison Group, among others, under various theories of liability based on the allegation that Segura and Lara stole Arriaga’s main customer and improperly solicited A&A’s employees to work for their competing business. B&G has represented Lara, Segura, and Maddison Group throughout the Arriaga action.

In August 2003, Andrade pleaded guilty to one count of sexual penetration with a foreign object by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1); count 2) and no contest to two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; counts 1, 4). Andrade also admitted the allegation that he committed count 1 while he was on bail (Pen. Code, § 12022.1). In October 2003, the trial court sentenced Andrade to 16 years in prison.
On October 28, 2016, the district attorney filed a petition seeking to have Andrade committed as a sexually violent predator under section 6600 et seq. On December 17, 2020, a jury found that Andrade met the criteria of a sexually violent predator as defined in section 6600, subdivision (a), and the court ordered Andrade committed to the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for an indeterminate term.
Andrade timely appealed.

On September 24, 2015, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an information charging Sanders with five counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b)). As to each count, the information alleged that Sanders personally used a handgun in committing the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Finally, the information alleged that Sanders had two prior strike convictions, three prior serious felony convictions, and one prior prison conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b) (i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b)).
Following a trial, the jury acquitted Sanders on four of the five robbery counts (counts 1 4), but found him guilty on the fifth (count 5). (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b).) The jury also found true that Sanders personally used a firearm in committing count 5, and in a bifurcated proceeding, found true all of the allegations relating to Sanders’s prior convictions.

On September 24, 2015, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an information charging Sanders with five counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b)). As to each count, the information alleged that Sanders personally used a handgun in committing the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Finally, the information alleged that Sanders had two prior strike convictions, three prior serious felony convictions, and one prior prison conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b) (i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b)).
Following a trial, the jury acquitted Sanders on four of the five robbery counts (counts 1 4), but found him guilty on the fifth (count 5). (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b).) The jury also found true that Sanders personally used a firearm in committing count 5, and in a bifurcated proceeding, found true all of the allegations relating to Sanders’s prior convictions.

In January 2019, an information charged Clark with three counts of arson and making criminal threats. As to two counts, the information alleged he burned multiple structures.
At a pretrial hearing, Clark’s counsel declared a doubt as to Clark’s competency. The trial court suspended proceedings pursuant to section 1368, et seq. The court appointed two psychologists, Dr. David W. Walsh and Dr. Veronica Thomas, to evaluate Clark. Later, the court appointed a third psychologist, Dr. Kara Cross, based on the parties’ stipulation. We have review Walsh’s, Thomas’s, and Cross’s reports. To maintain confidentiality, we provide only a brief summary of their conclusions.
In a report, Walsh reported he conducted a modified Folstein Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and “Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial—Revised” of Clark. Walsh concluded, “at the time of my examination, [Clark] denied and did not exhibit any symptoms of psychosis, mania, depression, panic or intoxi

After Salgado shot at a rival gang member but killed another, he was charged with one count of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), one count of attempted premeditated murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 2), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); counts 3 & 4); one count of possession of a firearm while on probation (§ 12021, subd. (d); count 5), and one count of street terrorism (active gang participation) (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 6). As to counts 1 through 5, it was further alleged that the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)). As to count 1, it was alleged Salgado personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subdivision (d)), and as to all counts, it was alleged that defendant personally used a firearm to commit or attempt to commit the offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).

In July of 2021, after a contested jurisdictional hearing, Superior Court Judge Katherine Lewis found it to be true that appellant S.S. (a juvenile) had violated Penal Code section 211 (robbery). Specifically, the court found that appellant and another man accosted the victim, pulled his bag from his shoulder, jumped into a blue van, and fled. The victim testified he stopped struggling and allowed appellant to take the bag because he was afraid.
The victim of the robbery was “100 percent sure” of his identification of appellant, even though he thought the robber was about the same height he was, and appellant is roughly six inches taller. Defense called an eyewitness identification expert who testified about the unreliability of identifications in circumstances such as those presented in this case. Nonetheless, the trial judge was convinced and found the petition true.

At the behest of a man who agreed to pay them $5,000, Thompson and his codefendants John Solis and Robert Sesma agreed to murder Vaudra “Butch” Nunley. As part of their murder plan, defendants lured Nunley to Solis’ house late one evening. Nunley arrived at the house with a companion named Rue Steele. When they entered Solis’ home, Sesma beat Steele to death, and Thompson severely beat Nunley. Defendants then loaded the victims into the trunk of a car and took them to Thompson’s house for burial. However, upon arrival, they discovered Nunley was not dead, so Sesma finished him off with a gunshot to the head. After that, defendants buried the victims in Thompson’s backyard and collected their bounty.
Following a joint jury trial, Thompson was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Sesma was convicted of first and second degree murder, conspiracy to commit second degree murder and kidnappin

One-month-old A.F. (the baby) presented to the emergency room on July 3, 2021, with bruising on her face, chest, mid-back, and arm. Further evaluation revealed multiple bilateral rib fractures of varying age, a left pulmonary contusion and left hemothorax. The fractures and laboratory test results were indicative of blunt force trauma and child abuse. The baby was admitted to the hospital where she remained for three days. Testing for a bone-related deficiency and/or a genetic disorder was normal.
Mother and her boyfriend, E.M., the baby’s father, lived with the maternal grandparents, a maternal aunt and her two children and a maternal uncle. Mother noticed bruising on the baby’s chest on July 1, 2021, and showed them to the maternal grandmother. They thought the bruises were a birth mark or marks made when mother breastfed. On the early morning of July 3, mother noticed bruising by the baby’s eye. She fed the baby and went back to sleep.

On April 1, 2021, the agency filed a section 300 petition alleging the children were at risk of harm due to a bruise on J.M., age eight, inflicted non-accidentally by mother and a bite mark on M.L., age five, inflicted non-accidentally by Martin L., alleged father of M.L. and B.L., age two. J.M.’s father was listed as unknown. The petition alleged further that mother and Martin L. had substance abuse issues and that their whereabouts were unknown.
In “Indian Child Inquiry Attachment” documents (ICWA-010(A)) attached to the petition, the agency indicated the interviews with mother and Martin L. on March 12, 2021, gave it no reason to believe the children might be Indian children.
Detention
In its detention report of April 2, 2021, the agency indicated that both mother and Martin L. denied any Native American ancestry. In an ICWA-020 form filed April 2, 2021, Martin L. stated he had no Indian ancestry, as far as he knew.

Defendant and M.M. were in an on-again, off-again dating relationship for several years. Defendant had a history of physically abusing M.M. while they were together, and harassing her when she tried to end the relationship on different occasions.
On May 6, 2019, at 3:00 a.m., defendant entered M.M.’s home wearing a Halloween mask and carrying an air soft rifle or pellet gun. M.M., her parents and four siblings were inside the home. Defendant demanded their phones, chased them, and slammed a door into one of their legs, bruising it. He slapped M.M. so hard that he knocked her down. During this altercation, he also fired his gun at M.M.’s family members three times, narrowly missing them. He fled when they said someone would hear him and call the police. The family called 911 but defendant had already fled by the time police officers arrived.
M.M. next saw defendant less than a week later, on May 12, 2019, as she exited her grandmother’s home.

Loya and H.G. were high school friends. They went their separate ways after graduating in 2016, but resumed their friendship in the summer of 2018 after Loya saw H.G. at her place of employment. They began texting regularly and met up approximately four times in the two-week period before the crime, either at the park or the community college in town.
The first time they met up, they sat in Loya’s car and talked. Loya asked H.G. for a kiss and then leaned over to kiss her, which she allowed. He then pulled her over so that she was on top of him in the driver’s seat of the car and they kissed but nothing further happened.
They met a second time at the college and again kissed with H.G. positioned on top of Loya in the driver’s seat. On that occasion, she allowed him to touch her underneath her clothing and penetrate her vagina with his fingers.
They met two more times at the park.

The prosecution established that, in April 2019, appellant was driving a vehicle with a suspended driver’s license. He was stopped by a Delano police officer, Joshua Garcia, after Garcia observed appellant driving at night without headlights. Garcia also saw appellant cross a double yellow line. Shortly after stopping appellant, Garcia learned that appellant’s driving privileges had been suspended. At some point that evening, another officer transported appellant to the Delano Police Department.
The following morning a different Delano police officer, Pedro Mendoza, transported appellant from Delano to Bakersfield for booking. Mendoza searched appellant before placing him inside a patrol car. That search, however, only occurred below appellant’s waistline and Mendoza did not search appellant’s shirt pockets. At trial, Mendoza explained that, because appellant was already under arrest, another officer would have already searched appellant more thoroughly.

The prosecution established that, in April 2019, appellant was driving a vehicle with a suspended driver’s license. He was stopped by a Delano police officer, Joshua Garcia, after Garcia observed appellant driving at night without headlights. Garcia also saw appellant cross a double yellow line. Shortly after stopping appellant, Garcia learned that appellant’s driving privileges had been suspended. At some point that evening, another officer transported appellant to the Delano Police Department.
The following morning a different Delano police officer, Pedro Mendoza, transported appellant from Delano to Bakersfield for booking. Mendoza searched appellant before placing him inside a patrol car. That search, however, only occurred below appellant’s waistline and Mendoza did not search appellant’s shirt pockets. At trial, Mendoza explained that, because appellant was already under arrest, another officer would have already searched appellant more thoroughly.