CA Unpub Decisions

A grand jury indicted Esquivel and Ruiz, together with four other codefendants, on the following counts: count 1—the murder of Francisco Navarro (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) ; count 2—attempted robbery in the second degree (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c), 664); and counts 3, 4, and 5—assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The grand jury further indicted Ruiz on: count 6—participating in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)); and count 7—reckless driving while fleeing a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). As to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, the indictment alleged the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)).
Esquivel entered an agreement to plead no contest to counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 in exchange for a sentence of six years eight months in prison, and she was released from custody based on the time served.

Cecilia and Miguel married in 2007 and separated in 2016. In 2011, they obtained a family home, located at 19020 Souza Way in Salinas (home). The home is the sole asset at issue in this appeal.
Due to his credit history, Miguel did not qualify for a home purchase loan. Therefore, Miguel arranged for his brother Alfredo to participate in its purchase. Alfredo and Cecilia appeared on the home’s title as joint tenants and were the named borrowers of the bank loan.
In connection with the purchase of the home, Miguel signed a quitclaim deed at the request of either the lender or the title company. The quitclaim deed stated that Miguel waived any future interest in the home and deemed the home to be Cecilia’s separate property.
For a number of years, Cecilia and Miguel lived together in the home. Miguel contributed to the monthly mortgage payments, although the parties dispute the amount of his contribution. In 2015, Miguel moved out of the home.

On September 4, 1991, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an amended information charging Henderson with murder (§ 187, subd. (a), count 1) and robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b), count 2). As to count 1, the information further alleged a robbery-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); as to count 2, an enhancement for the intentional infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7); and as to both counts, enhancements for the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and an on bail enhancement (§ 12022.1).
A jury found Henderson guilty on all charges and found true the robbery special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); the personal use of a firearm allegations (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); and the intentional infliction of great bodily injury allegation (§ 12022.7). Henderson admitted that he was released from custody on another felony charge when he committed the offenses (§ 12022.1).

We previously summarized the facts underlying petitioner’s offenses as follows :
“After an evening together at a dance club, Lamar [R. ] and his cousin Curtis [R.] drove to a convenience store and parked their cars nearby. Lamar stayed outside while Curtis went inside to buy some water. After Curtis saw people outside ‘scurrying around as if they were leaving hastily,’ he and Lamar started back to their cars. In an alley along the way, Curtis saw [petitioner] and [co-defendant Arthur] Lenix walking toward them. He knew [petitioner], with whom he had played basketball a few times and with whom Lamar had attended school. [Petitioner] looked as if ‘he had had a couple of drinks,’ so Curtis, on the way by, ‘patted him on the chest, hey man, wake up.’
“Once [petitioner] and Lenix were behind Curtis and Lamar, Curtis heard a metallic object hit the ground. Lamar turned around and told him Lenix ‘dropped a .38.’

Defendant and Velda met while in treatment for alcohol and substance abuse. In early 2012, Velda’s adult daughter, G.N., moved in with them in their house on Greystone Road in San Bernardino. (Magee I, supra, E070429, at p. 2.)
In the summer of 2012, defendant began having frequent seizures. Defendant resumed drinking alcohol again around the same time. Velda told him he was drinking too much and threw away or poured out his alcohol. Velda told a neighbor that she wanted a restraining order against defendant and that her marriage with defendant was failing. She also informed her neighbor that she wanted a divorce because of defendant’s drinking and that she had changed the locks because she was afraid of defendant. (Magee I, supra, E070429, at p. 3.)
G.N. believed that Velda was doing “something” to cause defendant’s seizures. G.N. told defendant she thought his seizures were caused by Velda poisoning him.

The People charged defendant with stalking in violation of a restraining order and alleged that defendant had sustained a prior felony stalking conviction in June 2018. At the jury trial, defendant stipulated to a prior stalking conviction in October 2017, and the alleged June 2018 prior felony stalking conviction, and that both involved the same victim. He also stipulated that a restraining order prohibiting him from contacting the same victim was in effect at the time of the current offense. According to the testimony of a probation officer at trial, defendant had served a prior prison term and was on postrelease community supervision when he was arrested for the current offense. The jury found defendant guilty of stalking in violation of the restraining order and found the prior felony stalking conviction allegation to be true.

Brown, an African American, was hired as the visiting team clubhouse manager for the River Cats in 2014. (Brown v. Arizona Diamondbacks, supra, C091629.) The River Cats are a minor league baseball team and a member of the Pacific Coast League. (Ibid.) As the visiting team clubhouse manager, Brown was responsible for maintaining and operating the clubhouse, and hosting visiting teams from the Pacific Coast League. (Ibid.) The Reno Aces were one such team.
The Reno Aces are affiliated with the Arizona Diamondbacks (Diamondbacks), a major league team. (Brown v. Arizona Diamondbacks, supra, C091629.) Joseph Metz was an athletic trainer for the Reno Aces, employed by the Diamondbacks. (Ibid.) The Reno Aces came to Sacramento twice during the 2014 baseball season, using the visiting clubhouse for three days in July 2014 and five days in August-September 2014. (Ibid.)

John Young pled no contest to resisting an executive officer in the performance of his duties and was sentenced to four years in state prison. His appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which no issues were raised. We affirm.
On April 27, 2020, Young threatened a housekeeper at the Willows Motel with whom he had had previous altercations. The police were called and Young was arrested. He posted bail and returned to the Willows Motel the next day. Young was arrested again for stalking and he was transported to the Van Nuys Jail. While there, Young fought with Officer Steven Beumer and caused Beumer to suffer a small cut on his right hand and a fractured bone in his left wrist.
Young was charged with making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)) and resisting an executive officer in the performance of his duties (§ 69).

On December 13, 2001, appellant was driving his Mustang; codefendant Cochese Wilson was in the front passenger seat. At approximately 10:30 p.m., appellant pulled alongside Wilbert Smith at a stop sign at 94th Place and Haas Street and exchanged words with him. As appellant drove away, Wilson fired shots from the car window. Smith was struck twice but survived.
Around 11:00 p.m. the same evening, Guion Revels was shot and killed on the front lawn of a home on South Hobart Street, near 96th Street. Witnesses saw a Mustang drive away from the scene.
Wilson admitted he was a member of the Eight-Trey Gangster Crips. Appellant had admitted membership in the same gang on previous occasions. A Los Angeles Police Department gang investigator opined that both shootings were committed for the benefit of the Eight-Trey Gangster Crips, in retaliation for a prior shooting.

On December 13, 2001, appellant was driving his Mustang; codefendant Cochese Wilson was in the front passenger seat. At approximately 10:30 p.m., appellant pulled alongside Wilbert Smith at a stop sign at 94th Place and Haas Street and exchanged words with him. As appellant drove away, Wilson fired shots from the car window. Smith was struck twice but survived.
Around 11:00 p.m. the same evening, Guion Revels was shot and killed on the front lawn of a home on South Hobart Street, near 96th Street. Witnesses saw a Mustang drive away from the scene.
Wilson admitted he was a member of the Eight-Trey Gangster Crips. Appellant had admitted membership in the same gang on previous occasions. A Los Angeles Police Department gang investigator opined that both shootings were committed for the benefit of the Eight-Trey Gangster Crips, in retaliation for a prior shooting.

When Davidson and Kaplan met in 2016, they discussed potential business arrangements. Davidson is a medical doctor who specializes in cannabis. In 2017 Davidson and Kaplan entered into an agreement to create and distribute a brand of marijuana and hemp products called “‘Dr. D,’” using Davidson’s likeness. In 2017 Davidson loaned $350,000 to Kaplan’s business, Vertical Wellness. In January 2019, Davidson transferred the outstanding balance on his loans into equity in Vertical Wellness. But by June 2019 the relationship between Davidson and Kaplan had frayed.

B. Kaplan’s Request for a Civil Harassment Restraining Order
On March 2, 2021 Kaplan filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Davidson under section 527.6. The request identified Davidson as a “current investor/business partner,” “stalker,” and “former friend.” (Capitalization omitted.)

The facts underlying Tooker’s convictions are recited in our October 2020 opinion. To summarize, Tooker committed several acts of domestic violence against M.A. while they were dating. After the relationship ended in 2013, Tooker began stalking her, and she obtained a restraining order against him. Around the same time the relationship ended, Tooker sustained a traumatic brain injury.
In June 2016, Tooker went to M.A.’s house with a gun, in violation of the restraining order. He entered her backyard, where she was gardening, displayed the gun, and told her he was going to kill her. M.A., who was holding pruning shears, attempted to escape over the yard’s back gate. Tooker pulled her down, slammed her head into the ground, and, after a struggle, stabbed her with the pruning shears eight times in the back of her neck and head. He then began strangling her with his hands.
Bystanders heard M.A. screaming for help, and two men entered her yard and were able to subdue Tooker.

In 2016, Rodriguez was convicted of two felonies: criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)) and stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)). The trial court subsequently found Rodriguez had suffered five prior felony convictions. It granted Rodriguez’s Romero motion and struck four of these five priors. The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to an aggregate 27-year prison term. It selected the stalking count as the principal term, imposed the upper term of five years, and doubled that term based on Rodriguez’s prior strike pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). It also imposed three consecutive five-year enhancements for prior serious felonies under section 667(a)(1), plus an additional two years for prior prison terms under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court stayed imposition of sentence on the criminal threats count pursuant to section 654.

On November 18, 2018, defendant walked into a Target store, filled a shopping basket with items, and walked out. A security guard observed defendant leave the store without paying for the items. The security guard stopped defendant outside of the store, brought him back inside, and called the police. After determining defendant was on two separate grants of probation, the responding officers arrested defendant.
The Napa County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with petty theft with priors (§ 666, subd. (b)). The information also alleged four prior theft convictions, a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)), and a prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On March 13, 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of petty theft with a prior (§ 666, subd. (b)) and admitted the four prior theft convictions and the prior strike conviction. The trial court struck the prison prior.
Sentencing and First Appeal (Case No. A157603)