CA Unpub Decisions

Edward Younghoon Shin appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of murder for financial gain. Shin argues the following: the trial court erred by admitting evidence; the prosecutor committed misconduct, or alternatively, his trial counsel was ineffective; there was cumulative error; the court erred by denying his motion for a continuance; and the court erred by denying his motion for new trial. None of his contentions have merit, and we affirm the judgment.

In 2005, plaintiff Ramin Redjai secured a refinancing loan for his property through a deed of trust. When Redjai defaulted on the loan, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (Nationstar) sought to enforce the agreement through collection or foreclosure. Redjai sued Nationstar and its trustee for wrongful foreclosure, unfair debt collection, fraud, declaratory relief, and other claims.

In 2000, defendant Wayne Eldon Wadkins was charged with two counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a) [counts 1 & 2]). As to both counts, the information alleged he was convicted in 1992 of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14 years of age, a qualifying “strike” offense under the Three Strikes law (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)) and a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); was convicted in 1992 of a second count of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14 years of age and continuous sexual abuse of a child, two more qualifying “strike” offenses (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)); and previously served a prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

Defendant James Ryan Dean shot and killed his fiancée’s ex-husband during a domestic dispute. The jury rejected the prosecution’s theory that the murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated, but convicted defendant of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, subd. (b).) The jury also found that in committing a felony, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death and he personally used a firearm. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.5, subd. (a).) Defendant admitted he suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law and served two prior prison terms. (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667.5, former subd. (b).)

Appellant and defendant Salvador Alcala was charged with several offenses arising out of a domestic violence incident he committed against his former girlfriend in 2016. The charged offenses were alleged to have occurred after defendant committed six prior incidents of domestic violence against her in 2011, 2012, and earlier in 2016.

A jury found defendant and appellant Mark Anthony Robles guilty of possession of methamphetamine while in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4573.6; count 1) and possession of methamphetamine after having suffered a prior conviction that required registration under Penal Code section 290, subdivision (c) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 2). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of four years in prison with 456 days’ credit for time served and ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), $80 in court operations assessments (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and $60 in criminal conviction fees (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no arguable issue and affirm the judgment.

In a third amended complaint plaintiff and appellant Christyna Arista and her children (collectively, the Family) sued defendant and respondent County of Riverside (the County) for wrongful death, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Family contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment. We reverse the judgment.

On July 2, 2019, an amended information charged defendant and appellant James Roy Stein with making criminal threats under Penal Code section 422 (counts 1, 2, 3), and dissuading a witness under section 136.1 (counts 4 and 5). As to counts 4 and 5, the information also alleged “that the defendant committed the above offense knowingly and maliciously by means of force and by an express or implied threat of force and violence, in furtherance of a conspiracy, having been convicted of a similar offense previously, and for a pecuniary gain, upon a witness or victim, within the meaning of PC 136.1, subdivision (c)(1).” Moreover, the information alleged five enhancements for prior prison terms under former section 667.5, subdivision (b).

In 2001, a jury convicted Bounthanom Didyavong of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). Didyavong was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison. Didyavong appealed and this court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Didyavong (July 30, 2002, D037601) [nonpub. opn.]).

Crenshaw appealed and this court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion filed in November 2001. (People v. Crenshaw (Nov. 30, 2001, D035848) [nonpub. opn.].)
In March 2019, Crenshaw filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court appointed counsel, received written briefs from the parties, and reviewed the record of the conviction. The court denied the petition by written order, concluding the record demonstrated Crenshaw was the actual killer and thus ineligible for relief under section 1170.95.
Crenshaw filed a timely notice of appeal.

On or about December 17, 2017, a burglary occurred at the home of A.L. wherein multiple items were taken, including A.L.’s identification information. On January 3, 2018, following a search of Graham O’Conner and his tent, A.L.’s identification information was recovered, along with burglary tools. Thereafter, on January 5, 2018, the People charged O’Conner with multiple crimes arising from this search, including receiving/concealing stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), and possession of burglary tools (§ 466). O’Conner was not charged with burglary. This case was resolved via a plea bargain on January 10, 2018.

This case involves a shooting in a Walmart parking lot during a domestic dispute that resulted in the death of a dog. A jury found defendant Jordan Murray guilty of assaulting his former girlfriend, A.W., with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), making a criminal threat to A.W. and her mother, Nicole Dalton (§ 422, subd. (a)), cruelty to an animal (§ 597, subd. (a)), discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (§ 246.3, subd. (a)), vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)), and false representation of identity to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the firearm enhancement allegations. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (c).) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of nine years four months in prison. This timely appeal followed.

This case involves a shooting in a Walmart parking lot during a domestic dispute that resulted in the death of a dog. A jury found defendant Jordan Murray guilty of assaulting his former girlfriend, A.W., with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), making a criminal threat to A.W. and her mother, Nicole Dalton (§ 422, subd. (a)), cruelty to an animal (§ 597, subd. (a)), discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (§ 246.3, subd. (a)), vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)), and false representation of identity to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the firearm enhancement allegations. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (c).) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of nine years four months in prison. This timely appeal followed.

Defendant Octavio Lamas appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request for a new trial following the discovery that the bailiff charged with safeguarding the jury was present for some portion of the jury’s deliberations. Defendant argues the bailiff’s presence during deliberations was per se prejudicial in violation of the federal and state Constitutions. The People agree that the bailiff’s presence during jury deliberations was error, but contend it created a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. Nevertheless, the People concede that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that the presumption of prejudice was rebutted, and ask us to remand the matter for further proceedings.