CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Manuel Ortiz, Jr., was convicted of murder after stabbing a fellow passenger on a city bus. On appeal, he argues that the court erred by admitting law enforcement testimony identifying him in a surveillance video, by admitting confusing DNA evidence, and by imposing fines and fees without determining his ability to pay them. We affirm

Appellant Reginald Foster appeals from his conviction for raping and injuring his girlfriend. He contends the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of a prior uncharged sexual offense against a former girlfriend under Evidence Code section 1108. We conclude there was no error. We therefore affirm the judgment.

A jury found Montavious Daytron Babbitt guilty of attempted murder. He challenges his jury, the testimony of his victim, a gang enhancement, and his fines and fees. We affirm and correct the abstract of judgment.
Unspecified statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

Froylan Delgado appeals from a judgment entered after the jury convicted him of shooting at an occupied vehicle, assault with an assault weapon, and possession of a firearm. The jury also found true gang and firearm enhancement allegations. On appeal, Delgado contends his due process rights were violated because the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 315 that an eyewitness’s level of certainty can be considered when evaluating the reliability of the witness’s identification. Delgado also argues the trial court abused its discretion by declining to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (c), and defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present any argument on Delgado’s behalf at the sentencing hearing.

Ralph Jordan (appellant) and three other men were charged with attempted robbery of a bank in violation of Penal Code sections 211, 664 and attempted murder during the failed robbery in violation of sections 664, 187, subdivision (a). One codefendant, Jeffery Brown, entered into a plea agreement and testified at trial against appellant and remaining codefendants Bryan Speight and Harold Johnson. Speight and Johnson had unsuccessfully sought plea agreements before trial; later, at the end of the People’s case-in-chief, they were able to reach plea agreements, but did not enter their pleas until after the trial. Jordan’s case was submitted to the jury, which convicted him as charged, and found true the allegation that a principal was armed with a handgun in the commission of both offenses. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).)

Two high-ranking employees of a nurse staffing company, while still employed by that company, secretly recruited nurses for a competitor’s staffing company. When the employees abruptly left to start up a new office for the competitor, their former employer sued them—and the competitor—for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and several other causes of action. A jury awarded the former employer over $3 million in lost profits and punitive damages. The employees and competitor appealed, challenging the verdict on a plethora of grounds, some of which are contrary to what they argued to the trial court. Because the general damages verdict rests upon at least one legally valid claim that is supported by substantial evidence and unaffected by any prejudicial error, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Eric Orlando Prado appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court denied his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. He contends the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea under Penal Code section 1018. Alternatively, he claims his plea is invalid because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of the trial court’s June 2019 order granting Terry Heath’s motion to modify child support. We reverse the order modifying child support, concluding the court erred in considering the spousal support received by Jane Heath from Terry as a special circumstance warranting departure from the child support guideline. (Fam. Code, §§ 4056–4076, 4057, subd. (b)(5).) On remand, the court must recalculate the amount of child support payable from Terry to Jane from September 1, 2016 until each child reached the age of majority.

Defendant was adjudicated a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). That status burdened defendant with numerous statutory disabilities that he wished to evade by changing his name. His attempt to do so came to the attention of state and federal authorities, and resulted in criminal charges. A jury convicted him of one count of perjury (Pen. Code, § 118 ); two counts of identity theft—technically the unauthorized use of personal identifying information of another person—(§ 530, subd. (a)); two counts of document forgery with intent to defraud (§ 470, subd. (d)); and seven counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant had three prior sex-offense “strike” convictions. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike one or more of the previous conviction findings pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), and sentenced him to state prison for an aggregate term of 300 years to life.

Appellant Ricardo Padilla Fitz appeals from an order denying his postjudgment motion which had asked the trial court to “grant a remand” so “the court can exercise its newly-granted discretion” to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h), as amended by Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). Fitz’s appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Fitz filed a supplemental brief. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Fitz has appealed a nonappealable order and thus dismiss this appeal.

Defendant Lassell Stevens pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant and admitted a strike prior. Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to a four-year prison term. On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asked this court to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We sent a letter to defendant notifying him of his right to submit a written argument on his own behalf on appeal. He has not done so.
Finding no arguable appellate issue, we affirm. We will provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crime[] of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed,” as required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. We will further include information about aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Id. at p. 124.)

Appellant Tommy Roy Clewis filed a postjudgment motion in the trial court seeking to modify his sentence by striking the prison terms imposed for using a firearm during the commission of his crimes. Clewis argued that the recent passage of Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) entitled him to such relief. On May 8, 2019, the trial court denied the motion, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to grant it. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Clewis has appealed from a nonappealable order and thus dismiss this appeal.

After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, defendant Brandon Lamar Bell pleaded guilty to pimping Jane Doe No. 1 (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a); count 1); pandering by procuring Jane Doe No. 1 (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1); count 2); possession of a concealed loaded unregistered firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subds. (a)(1), (c)(6); count 3); pimping Jane Doe No. 2 (§ 266h, subd. (a); count 5); and pandering by procuring Jane Doe No. 2 (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1); count 6). Per the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to a four-year prison sentence on count 1. The court also sentenced defendant to four years on counts 2, 5, and 6, and two years on count 3, all to run concurrently.

Appellant Jimmy Ray Patrick challenges an order denying his petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which restricts the scope of vicarious liability for the crime of murder. The trial court ruled this restriction unlawfully amended Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 in violation of the California Constitution. We disagree with that conclusion. However, by its terms, SB 1437 applies only to those defendants who were convicted of murder. Because appellant was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, he is not entitled to resentencing relief pursuant to SB 1437. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order denying his petition.