CA Unpub Decisions

Sixty-three-year-old defendant Edward Everette Thomas got into a fight with his 72-year-old sister and his 94-year-old mother. The jury convicted him of two counts of elder abuse and two counts of battery and found defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on his victims.

Police responding to a 911 call arrived at S. D.’s house, where her former boyfriend, defendant Eduard Kamilchu, was inside the house in violation of a restraining order. Officers entered and positioned themselves at the base of the stairs to the second floor. Defendant, who was upstairs, used kerosene to light a lamp on fire and threw it down the stairs. He then ignited the fumes of the one-gallon kerosene can, engulfing the stairwell, and eventually much of the house, into flames. A jury found defendant guilty of arson of an inhabited structure.

After a bench trial, defendant Gerardo Anthony Carrasco was found guilty of failing to register as a sex offender. The trial court granted defendant’s request to waive his right to a jury trial and also permitted him to represent himself for a portion of the trial pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 821. He contends on appeal that neither the waiver of his right to a jury trial nor the waiver of his right to counsel were valid. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Armondo Hernandez appeals from the denial of his Penal Code section 1170.95 petition. He argues the trial court applied an incorrect analysis when evaluating his claim, and also that no substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that he directly aided and abetted the killing. In an unpublished opinion, we reversed the order denying the petition and remanded for a new hearing. (People v. Hernandez (Aug. 9, 2021, C091247) [nonpub. opn.].) Our Supreme Court granted the Attorney General’s petition for review and ultimately transferred the case with directions for this court to vacate our prior decision and reconsider the cause in light Senate Bill No. 775 (2020-2021 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill No. 775). Upon reconsideration, we come to the same conclusion; the record does not establish that the trial court applied the correct analysis to defendant’s claim. We reverse the order denying the petition and remand for a new hearing.

A jury found defendant Taylor William Montgomery-Gutzman guilty of assault and second degree murder of K., a 22-month old child, and of permitting K.’s twin B., to suffer unjustifiable physical pain and mental suffering. Defendant was tried along with his former girlfriend and the twins’ mother, Rebecca Thomas. We have already affirmed Thomas’s judgment. (People v. Thomas (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 612 (Thomas).) Before us now is defendant’s appeal, in which he contends the prosecutor committed several instances of prosecutorial error, while the trial court improperly admitted and excluded several items of evidence as well as erroneously instructed the jury. Disagreeing with every contention, we affirm the judgment of conviction. We, however, remand defendant’s case for the trial court to determine whether to exercise its newly granted discretion when sentencing defendant.

A jury found defendant David Ashley Froste guilty of first and second degree murder and kidnapping. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, defendant raises three contentions: (1) the admission of certain hearsay statements, as a statement against interest, was error because the statements were not against the declarant’s penal interest and lacked indicia of reliability; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing into possible juror misconduct; and (3) punishment for kidnapping must be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. (Statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise identified.)

Kenneth L. Campbell appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion to vacate his 1977 conviction for first degree robbery pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(2). No arguable issues were identified by Campbell’s appointed appellate counsel after his review of the record. We also have identified no arguable issues after our own independent review of the record and analysis of the contentions presented by Campbell in a supplemental brief. We affirm.

A jury convicted Ariel Baker Paniagua on one count of murder, three counts of attempted murder, two counts of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury also found true firearm allegations in connection with each of the offenses and, with one exception, gang allegations. The trial court sentenced Paniagua to a prison term of 268 years four months to life.

Kimberly M. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders made on March 8, March 12, April 9, April 26, and April 27, 2021.

In 2017, appellant Andrew Earl Cheshire was convicted of attempted murder. In February 2021, he petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, and requested the appointment of counsel. The trial court summarily denied his petition without appointing counsel, finding both that persons convicted of attempted murder were ineligible for relief under section 1170.95, and that even if they were eligible, appellant was not.

L.G. (mother) and E.H. (father) appeal from orders terminating their parental rights to their children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. They contend that the juvenile court erred in finding that mother had not established that the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption applied. We disagree and affirm the orders.

Defendant and appellant Jaime Cox (defendant) was convicted of the first degree murder of Sergio Bernal. Briefly stated, the conviction was predicated on defendant’s role as the driver in a drive-by shooting she committed with two accomplices; defendant was convicted as a direct aider and abettor, and felony murder and natural and probable consequences murder instructions were not given to the jury. In 2012, defendant was sentenced to 50 years in prison (after a remand following her direct appeal).

Defendant and appellant Daniel Martinez challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. He contends that the trial court erred by finding that he failed to make a prima facie case that he was eligible for relief under the statute. We agree.

The dependency proceedings giving rise to this appeal concern K.M., the daughter of M.P. (Mother) and T.M. (Father). When the juvenile court concluded its jurisdiction over K.M. and ended proceedings, it granted sole legal and physical custody to Father, with monitored visitation for Mother. The order to this effect addresses numerous details regarding Mother’s visitation rights, such as the frequency and duration of visits and the selection of a monitor. In the portion of the order addressing “reasons for no or supervised visitation” (capitalization omitted), the court noted that Mother “ha[d] not made substantial progress in the following court-ordered programs”: “[i]ndividual counseling” and “[o]ther . . . Mother must complete five . . . random or on demand drug tests and her Marijuana levels must be under 500 ng/ml.” At the hearing, the court described these provisions as a “rider” imposing testing and counseling requirements on Mother. Nowhere in the order, a