CA Unpub Decisions

On April 30, 2018, K.H. called 911 to report that Wilson “[s]lammed my hand in the door” as she was “trying to leave, and he got upset.” K.H. stated, “he kicked me and he actually physically pushed me, and then he slammed my hand in the door.” K.H. explained that she was “outside the apartment, [Wilson] got upset because I took some of my money, he kicked me out on a . . . [d]ay’s notice.” She added, “I don’t have a nail . . . [he] [r]ipped off a nail.” K.H. stated that Wilson was “definitely . . . high on meth, he is high on heroin.”
After further questioning about the extent of her injuries, K.H. elaborated that she was bleeding from “all my fingers.” “[Wilson] completely ripped off my nails, and he kept doing it. And he kept doing it.” K.H. stated that this was “the first time he kicked me out.” The dispatcher asked about weapons in the apartment, and K.H. answered, “No, but he has physically hurt me before.”
The dispatcher asked if Wils

On December 16, 2016, petitioner, Johanna Marie Yach, was arraigned out of custody on a misdemeanor complaint alleging hit and run with injury, and hit and run with property damage. Yach entered into a general time waiver until June 25, 2021, and at that time, trial was set for September 13, 2021, as day 0 of 10, with September 23, 2021, as the last day to start trial at the expiration of the 10-day trailing period in section 1382(a)(3)(B).
On September 13, 2021, petitioner announced ready for trial, and the People filed a motion to continue the trial pursuant to section 1050. The People’s declaration explained that a continuance was necessary for two reasons. First, they were unable to subpoena the victims because they now reside out of state and they were not due to return to California until September 23, 2021, and second, Officer Roberts, the investigating officer was unavailable.

Kirkpatrick pleaded guilty to a violation of Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (b), stalking with a restraining order. He also admitted two prior strike convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(2)(A). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court struck the prior convictions, and sentenced Kirkpatrick to three years of probation. The court imposed various terms and conditions of probation including a $300 restitution fine, and that Kirkpatrick comply with a protective order.
Kirkpatrick admitted a violation of probation, and the trial court found he violated probation. The court reinstated probation and sentenced Kirkpatrick to credit for time served of 104 days in county jail. On May 11, 2021, the court terminated probation pursuant to Penal Code sections 1203.1 and 1203a.

On October 22, 2020, Reem filed a declaratory relief action, seeking a judicial declaration that: (1) she had purchased three life insurance policies issued to her sister Rehab pursuant to a November 22, 2018 Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA), and (2) her nephew and designee, Kameel Reehani, was the sole owner of record of the policies in accordance with change of ownership forms submitted to the life insurance companies. In her complaint, Reem alleged that in 2015, Rehab and her son Shadi asked her to purchase life insurance policies insuring Rehab. In exchange for paying all policy premiums, Reem would receive 80 percent of the death benefits, of the premiums she paid. Shadi was designated the beneficiary of the remaining 20 percent interest. Rehab subsequently obtained three life insurance policies, and Reem made various payments to her, which were used to pay the premiums.

Appellant reiterates his jurisdictional argument, claiming TSG is not a legally cognizable defendant due to the fact it was formed for illegal purposes. Although appellant does not request an end to the OCDA’s injunction program, he contends gang injunctions can only be issued when the underlying complaint is brought against individual gang members, and not the gang itself. We cannot agree. “The ultimate issue of whether an exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable is a legal determination subject to de novo review on appeal.” (Aquila v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.) Exercising our independent judgment on the issue, we find TSG was properly named as a defendant in this case, and there is no basis to dissolve the injunction against it for lack of jurisdiction.
Before addressing the merits of appellant’s argument, we first take up respondent’s procedural objections to the appeal.

In May 2021, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took then five-year-old Brooklyn, two-year-old B.D. and seven-month-old L.D. into protective custody out of concern for their physical safety.
Mother has a significant history of physically abusing her children. In 2005, mother hit her then eight-year-old daughter, L.A., with a stick and belt and held her on the stove causing bruises and blisters. L.A. was admitted to the hospital. Coached by mother, L.A. accused her father of injuring her but later recanted and said mother did it. Mother was arrested, convicted for the abuse, and served seven years in prison. In 2017 and 2019, the department began to receive referrals mother exposed Brooklyn to domestic violence. In late 2019, Tulare County received reports of mother punching her teenage daughter, M.G., in the face and back, throwing her to the floor, pulling out chunks of her hair and hitting her in the head, causing her to lose consciousness.

On April 29, 2020, appellants’ relative was shot and killed by a deputy of the Madera County Sheriff’s Office. In June 2020, appellants’ legal counsel made a written CPRA request to County on appellants’ behalf for a variety of materials concerning the relative’s fatal encounter with law enforcement. Appellants specifically requested audio and video recordings of the incident.
In July 2020, County’s attorneys communicated with appellants’ counsel regarding the CPRA request. County’s attorneys reportedly confirmed its possession of the responsive materials, and appellants’ counsel reportedly stated “that he was primarily concerned with receiving the body cam and dash cam footage so he could determine if there were adequate grounds to bring a civil action for [the relative’s] death.” In subsequent correspondence, it was “indicated that the County would disclose the dash cam and body cam footage on August 7, 2020.”

In the underlying case, appellant Stepfon Jones was charged with premeditated murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1); assault on a child under age eight resulting in death (§ 273ab, subd. (a); count 2); and felony child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a); count 3).
In May 2017, a jury found appellant guilty of counts 2 and 3, and the lesser offense of second degree murder in count 1. On June 27, 2017, the trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life in prison on count 2, and a consecutive six-year sentence on count 3. The trial court stayed the term of count 1 pursuant to section 654.
Appellant appealed. On September 18, 2020, this Court affirmed. (People v. Jones (Sept. 18, 2020, F075895) [nonpub. opn.].)
In September 2018, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4). That bill, effective on January 1, 2019, added section 1170.95 to the Penal Code.

On August 2, 2019, a media outlet published an article stating, inter alia, “Taft Police are investigating a stabbing that occurred somewhere in the city Wednesday evening but they have an uncooperative victim and little information to go on.” Months later, on November 18, 2019, appellant made a CPRA request to City via e-mail. He wrote:
“The following is my public records request: I read online (www.taftmidwaydriller.com/...olice-investigate-stabbing) that on or about July 31, 2019, Taft Police officers were called to the West Side Family Health Care Clinic where a 60-year-old man had gone for treatment of a stab wound to the upper right rib cage. Please email me the name of the victim.”
On November 27, 2019, City’s legal counsel provided the following written response:
“Mr. Austin: [¶] I am the City Attorney for the City of Taft, California. Please consider this a response to your request under the Public Records Act. Your request is included below.

Minor was removed from her parents’ care and placed with her grandmother. On July 2, 2020, Minor snuck out of her grandmother’s house around 2:00 a.m. and stole her car. Minor was apprehended the next day while driving the vehicle. Minor’s uncle, the car’s registered owner, wanted Minor prosecuted.
On July 16, 2020, Minor again snuck out of her house in the middle of the night and stole her grandmother’s car. The police apprehended Minor after she drove the car into a tree. Minor was removed from her grandmother’s care shortly afterward.
On August 7, 2020, the People filed a first amended juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), each with two allegations that Minor committed vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); paragraphs 1 (felony) and 3 (misdemeanor)), and possessed a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); paragraphs 2 (felony) and 4 (misdemeanor)).

In 2018, defendants and appellants Rodolfo Nunez and Alfredo Rodriquez were tried together before separate juries and found guilty as charged of the first degree premeditated murder of Ofakitonga Kofu on July 10, 2017. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, subd. (a), count 1.) Rodriguez was also convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. (§ 29800, count 2.) The juries found gang enhancement allegations true on each conviction (§ 186.22, subd. (b)) and that a principal, Rodriguez, personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death in the murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (e)(1)).
Rodriguez was sentenced to five years plus 60 years to life, and Nunez was sentenced to 50 years to life. Each defendant was ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and $70 in court assessments on each of their respective convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1465.8; Gov Code, § 70373.)

Meza was friends with defendant, Daniel Soto and the victim. On May 26, 2016, Meza rented a room in a house on Calle Zafiro in Indio. On that evening the victim and Soto both contacted Meza and said they wanted to come to his house to hang out. Soto wanted to bring some girls with him. After the victim arrived at Meza’s house, he called defendant. Defendant arrived at Meza’s house about 20 minutes later. Meza, the victim and defendant were all in Meza’s bedroom.
Meza, the victim and defendant were all getting along and talking. The victim and defendant both had guns that they were showing off to each other. The gun possessed by defendant would have taken .40- or .45-caliber bullets. There was no tension between the victim and defendant. Soto showed up about 10 minutes later. Soto looked into the room when he arrived; Meza indicated defendant was still in the room. Meza went with Soto to the kitchen. Defendant and the victim stayed in Meza’s room.

As do the parties, we take the facts from our unpublished 2004 decision affirming Romero’s conviction for attempted murder. (People v. Romero (Mar. 29, 2004, D041395) [nonpub. opn.], review denied June 9, 2004, S124644 (Romero).) (See People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 13 [“The record of conviction may include the underlying facts as presented in an appellate opinion”].)
On the night of February 7, 2001, Romero got into a fight with Steven Courtney at a bar. After they were kicked out of the bar, the fight continued in the parking lot. When the fight ended, Romero’s face was bleeding and his shirt was torn. Romero threatened to kill Courtney. Courtney left the scene. (Romero, supra, D041395.)
Later that night, Romero made some calls to find out where Courtney lived. He changed into dark clothes and a beanie, and asked Luis Arechiga to drive him because he was too drunk to drive.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Travis Ray Thompson, in pro. per.; and Nancy J. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2003, Travis Ray Thompson was an inmate in a state prison in Imperial County. He was convicted of assault by a prisoner (Pen. Code, § 4501) and possession of a weapon by a prisoner (§ 4502, subd. (a)).
In a separate case, Thompson was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). There were true findings on one serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two strike priors (§ 667,subds. (b)-(i)). Thompson was sentenced to 25 years to life plus five years in prison.
Thompson appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed the convictions in two unpublished opinions. (People v. Thompson (Jan. 26, 2005, D042750); People v. Thompson (Aug. 12, 2005, D044829).)