CA Unpub Decisions

Vivian Marie Awwad appeals from convictions of possession for sale of methamphetamine and fraudulent possession of personal information. She contends the trial court improperly imposed a probation condition requiring her to submit to warrantless searches of her electronic devices. She also maintains she received ineffective assistance of counsel due to her attorney’s failure to object to the fees, fines, and assessments imposed by the court, and failure to request an ability to pay hearing. In supplemental briefing, she further contends two fees imposed under former Penal Code section 1203.1ab must be vacated pursuant to recently effective legislation. We conclude the challenged probation condition must be stricken and any balance owed on the section 1203.1ab fees must be vacated, and the probation conditions requiring payment of such fees must be stricken.

In this partition action, Jennifer Mae Rosenblum and Frank Rosenblum (appellants) appeal from an award of sanctions in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for CSFB Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-7 (respondent). Appellants argue the trial court erred in awarding sanctions based on the filing of their cross-complaint asserting a quiet title claim, which the court concluded was frivolous because the claim was precluded by this court’s prior decision in Rosenblum vs. U.S. Bank, National Association (Apr. 1, 2016, A143027) [nonpub. opn.] (Rosenblum I). We affirm.

Defendant Roy Gerald Gordon appeals his sentence imposed after remand for resentencing. We conclude that the trial court erred in imposing a three-year enhancement for a prison prior offense under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (a) (§ 667.5(a)), because none of the offenses Gordon committed after the prison prior offense is a “violent” felony as required by the statute. Accordingly, we order the three-year enhancement stricken and remand for resentencing.

A jury found defendant Samuel Martinez guilty as charged of second degree robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison. Martinez raises claims of evidentiary, instructional, and sentencing error. We remand for resentencing under the sentencing law as amended by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 567). We otherwise affirm the judgment.

Defendant William Daniel Dixon appeals after a jury found him guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), possession of ammunition by a by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)), possession of a silencer (§ 33410), possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a)), and possession of a machine gun (§ 32625, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison.

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found that appellant J.S. (the minor) had committed the following offenses alleged in two juvenile wardship petitions (Petition A and Petition B) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)). From Petition A: robbery by means of force or fear (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)), carjacking a person 60 years of age or older (§§ 215, subd. (a), 1203.09, subd. (f)), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). From Petition B: attempted carjacking while using a deadly or dangerous weapon (§§ 664, 215, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1)), attempted robbery while using a deadly or dangerous weapon (§§ 664, 212.5, subd. (c), 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and hit and run driving causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)(1) & (a)(2)). At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated the minor as a ward of the court and committed him to the Santa Clara County Juvenile Rehabilitation Fa

Isaac David Jacob Brown appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of murder, attempted murder, shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, and unlawful possession of ammunition, and found true firearm enhancements. Brown argues the following: the trial court erred by admitting his custodial statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda); the court erred by admitting evidence or, alternatively he received ineffective assistance of counsel; the court erred in instructing the jury; the court erred in sentencing him; and there was cumulative error.

This is an appeal from the denial of defendant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. In his petition, defendant declared that he was convicted of murder under a theory of natural and probable consequences, which is no longer a valid ground to support a murder conviction. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an OSC. The court reasoned that defendant was also convicted of burglary, and that charge required the jury to find defendant intended to commit murder.

Defendant appeals after being sentenced to a determinate prison term of 6 years 2 months, followed by an indeterminate term of life with the possibility of parole, for attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)), with a finding of premeditation and deliberation (§ 664, subd. (a)), and attempted carjacking (§§ 215, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)), both with associated true findings of use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). He claims the trial court erred from evidentiary and sentencing standpoints. As for the former, defendant argues the court violated his federal right of confrontation by admitting videotaped testimony of the prosecution’s key witness — the victim. Regarding the latter, he contends the court violated section 654 by imposing consecutive term sentences without staying the attempted carjacking sentence. Defendant also asserts the abstract of judgment incorrectly lists his atte

Felipe Hernandez appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of administrative mandate. Hernandez sought a writ of administrative mandate following the revocation of his state contractor’s license by respondent, the Registrar of Contractors, California Contractors State License Board (the Board). That revocation was the end result of a hearing held before an administrative law judge, following complaints made to the Board against Hernandez by his former customers arising from a particular construction project.

Defendant Alfred Jacob Neith stands convicted by jury of one count of assault with a firearm pursuant to Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2). , The jury also found true a great bodily injury (GBI) enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a), and a firearm enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of nine years. (§§ 245, subd. (a)(2), 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a).) The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine, and court assessments in the amount of $70.

A jury found in favor of plaintiff Anita Ross and against her former employer, defendant County of Madera (County), for violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), arising from retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation. The jury awarded Ross a total of $2 million in economic and noneconomic damages. The County moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new trial. While the trial court denied the motion for JNOV, it partially granted the new trial motion. The trial court found four incidents of attorney misconduct and an instructional error, the cumulative effect of which prevented the County from having a fair trial, and the damages awarded were excessive.

Joshua John Phillips (defendant) assaulted his former girlfriend, B.C., one night in Kern County. B.C. sustained physical injuries from the attack. Police arrested defendant in B.C.’s home. She subsequently obtained a criminal protective order and served it on defendant.

Appellant Jesus Gonzalez Trujillo was convicted by jury of two counts of forcible lewd and lascivious acts against a child 14 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 2 & 6) against two separate victims, and one count of lewd and lascivious acts against a child 14 years or younger (§ 288, subd. (a); count 3) against a third victim. The jury also found true as to all counts that appellant committed the offenses against multiple victims (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)(4)). Appellant was sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of 15 years to life on each count, for an aggregate term of 45 years to life.