CA Unpub Decisions

In 2006, Ronnie Edward Johnson was convicted of, among other things, the murder of Charles Trice (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with burglary-murder and robbery-murder special circumstance findings (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). In 2019, Johnson filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court denied the petition, and Johnson filed this appeal. He contends the trial court erred when it concluded as a matter of law that he did not qualify for resentencing due to the jury’s special circumstance findings. Johnson also argues, and the People concede, that the court erred when it weighed the evidence at the prima facie stage of the proceedings to find Johnson was either the actual killer or a direct aider and abettor who had the intent to kill. We reverse and remand for issuance of an order to show cause.

Defendant and appellant Frank Trinh appeals from a default judgment entered in favor of Minh Nguyen and a default judgment entered in favor of Phien Pham and Oai Tieu in related employment actions based on wage and hour violations. Frank’s notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after he was served with file-stamped copies of the judgments, and the time to appeal was not extended under rule 8.108(c) of the California Rules of Court. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Appellant Antonio DeJesus Esquivel appeals the trial court’s order denying his request to strike or reduce the 25-year-term firearm enhancement imposed on him under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) (section 12022.53(d)). He argues his case should be remanded because the trial court did not understand the scope of its discretionary sentencing powers under section 12022.53, subdivision (h) (section 12022.53(h)) when it declined to strike the firearm enhancement based on the erroneous belief it lacked authority to impose a lesser included enhancement in its place. In light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Tirado (Jan. 20, 2022, S257658) ___ Cal.5th ___ [2022 WL 176411] (Tirado II), which concluded that a court could strike a greater firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(d) and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement instead, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

Emperatriz A. Rivera pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted the personal infliction of great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). She also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The balance of the charges and allegations were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. The trial court sentenced Rivera to a determinate term of 14 years in prison as stipulated in the plea agreement.
Rivera brought postplea motions to replace counsel and to withdraw her guilty plea. The motion to replace counsel was denied and the motion to withdraw the guilty plea was also denied. Rivera was removed from the court prior to the actual sentence being imposed because of misconduct during the hearing.
Rivera filed a notice of appeal, but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 43

First American Title Insurance Company (First American) prevailed in the superior court in an action seeking (1) a refund of sales tax reimbursement it had paid to lessors of business equipment; and (2) an order vacating as unconstitutional a tax regulation providing that sales tax applied if the lessee (such as an insurance company) was exempt from paying use tax. The superior court later awarded First American $204,391.97 in attorney fees as the prevailing party under Revenue and Tax Code section 7156. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) separately appealed from the judgment and the postjudgment order awarding attorney fees. While considering the appeal from the judgment, we stayed briefing on the attorney fee appeal.
We recently reversed the underlying judgment and vacated the writ of mandate issued by the superior court. (First American Title Ins. Co. v. California Dept. of Tax & Fee Administration (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 603 (First American I).) Aft

Justin Thalheimer, convicted of first degree premeditated murder following a jury trial in 2010 and sentenced to an indeterminate state prison term of 76 years to life under the three strikes law, petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 on April 26, 2021. Thalheimer included with his filing a second petition for resentencing, purportedly pursuant to former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) (now section 1170.03, subdivision (a)(1)), although no recommendation for resentencing had been submitted to the court by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the Los Angeles County District Attorney.
The superior court summarily denied Thalheimer’s section 1170.95 petition, ruling he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law based on his conviction for first degree murder and the jury’s finding he had personally used a knife during the commission of the murder. The court did not rule on the request for resentencing und

Appellant Robert Lindow seeks review of an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint he filed against his brother, Carl E. Lindow, and dismissing the action. Robert forfeited his arguments by 1) failing to cite to the record on appeal in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a); and, 2) failing to show that he raised his arguments in the trial court. We affirm the dismissal.

This action originates from a judgment entered nearly 50 years ago, on August 29, 1973 (the judgment). The judgment was in favor of the named plaintiff in the action, Barbara Benson (Benson), against defendant John Graham (Graham). The judgment required that Graham pay $150 in monthly child support, commencing September 1, 1973, with payments being made to Santa Clara County Adult Probation Department (Adult Probation). In 2019, Benson’s daughter, Maignon Davey (Davey), as administrator of Benson’s estate, substituted as the plaintiff. In September 2019, Davey filed a motion to enforce child support judgment, or, in the alternative, to renew the judgment. She claimed that the total amount owed on the judgment, including accrued interest, was $314,422.37. On October 30, 2019, the court denied the motion, finding that Davey had no personal knowledge as to whether the judgment had or had not been paid.

A jury convicted defendant Charles Gutierrez of willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189. ) The jury found true allegations that, in the commission of the murder, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and that defendant committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1) & (5)).

A jury convicted defendant Charles Gutierrez of willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189. ) The jury found true allegations that, in the commission of the murder, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and that defendant committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1) & (5)).

A jury convicted defendant Charles Gutierrez of willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189. ) The jury found true allegations that, in the commission of the murder, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and that defendant committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1) & (5)).

A jury convicted defendant Charles Gutierrez of willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189. ) The jury found true allegations that, in the commission of the murder, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and that defendant committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1) & (5)).

This is an appeal by father from the court’s finding that it had jurisdiction in the dependency proceeding involving minors M.R. and B.R. Father does not object to jurisdiction, per se—he acknowledges that jurisdiction over the minors was proper due to their mother’s behavior—but he contends the evidence does not support the jurisdictional findings the court made as to him. We have discretion to decline such an appeal. However, given the potentially adverse consequences of the court’s findings on father’s legal rights, we will reach the merits of his claim. Father seeks to strike the jurisdictional findings against him.

Defendant Daniel William Del Rosario was convicted by a jury of first degree robbery on a trackless trolley (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)) and various other crimes after he took a passenger’s backpack from a trolley, then fought the passenger outside the trolley when the passenger attempted to retrieve his backpack. Defendant raises a single issue on appeal: he contends his conviction for first degree robbery should be reduced to second degree robbery (with a corresponding two-year prison sentence reduction) because his confrontation with the passenger did not occur “on” a trackless trolley. We disagree and affirm the conviction and sentence.