CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal arises from a juvenile wardship proceeding in which it was alleged that Manuel J. (the Minor) imported methamphetamine into the United States (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 1) and that he possessed methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378; count 2). After his request for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) was denied, the Minor admitted count 1 and the remaining count was dismissed. The Minor was placed on probation subject to serving 120 days in juvenile hall. The court also imposed various terms and conditions including a search waiver. The search waiver stated that the Minor must "[S]urrender his person and/or property to search and seizure anytime of the day or night, with or without a warrant, with or without probable cause, to any Probation Officer or Peace Officer."

Defendant Corvonte Mica Taylor was convicted of two counts of possession of controlled substances for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351 (hydrocodone) & 11375, subd. (b)(1) (alprazolam)); one count of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, subd. (b)); with true findings that all three drug-sale charges were for the benefit of or in association with a gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subds. (b)(1)(A), (d) ); and one count of participating in felonious gang conduct (§ 186.22, subd. (a)).

Defendant and appellant Juan Fuentes shot Roy Craddock in the head six times at close range. The crime was captured on surveillance video. Fuentes was convicted of first degree murder with personal use of a handgun, which he personally discharged, causing death. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d).) The jury found true that Fuentes had one prior serious or violent felony conviction. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The trial court sentenced Fuentes to an indeterminate term of 80 years to life.
Fuentes raises issues of sufficiency of the evidence, admission of gang evidence, failure to bifurcate the trial on his prior conviction, instructional error on intimidating a witness, prosecutorial error at closing argument, a five-year prior serious felony conviction enhancement, and cumulative error. We remand with directions and otherwise affirm the judgment.

A jury acquitted Miguel Angel Cortes of possessing phencyclidine (PCP) for sale, but convicted him of the lesser included offense of PCP possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377). The trial court denied Cortes's request for placement in Proposition 36 drug treatment on the grounds that he was not amenable to drug treatment and sentenced him to 100 days in jail and three years' probation. Cortes contends the court erred in excluding him from Proposition 36 probation and drug treatment. We agree and remand for resentencing.

A jury convicted codefendants Reginald Makalea Gravely, Jamicia Nate Gravely and Anthony Bernard Brown of torture (Pen. Code, § 206; count 1), kidnapping (§ 207; count 3), and robbery (§ 211; count 4). It found true an allegation that the robbery was in the first degree. It also convicted Reginald and Brown of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 2) and found true an allegation that their conduct was willful, deliberate and premeditated.

Sean Mazelli appeals a judgment entered after the trial court summarily adjudicated his wage and hour related claims in favor of his former employer, Sullivan Solar Power of California, Inc. (Sullivan). Mazelli contends that the court erred when it refused to admit into evidence his written compensation agreement with Sullivan. He asserts that consideration of this agreement requires that the judgment against him be reversed. We conclude that the trial court properly excluded the compensation agreement because Mazelli failed to authenticate the document. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs Janette Nolasco and Brenda Taylor (Plaintiffs) sued defendant Scantibodies Laboratory, Inc. (Scantibodies), for retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5. Their complaint included a claim under Labor Code section 2699, the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The Labor Code section 1102.5 claims were tried to a jury, and the jury found Scantibodies liable for retaliation. The trial court awarded Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 costs to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Janette Nolasco and Brenda Taylor (Plaintiffs) sued defendant Scantibodies Laboratory, Inc. (Scantibodies), for retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5. Their complaint included a claim under section 2699 et seq., the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The section 1102.5 claims were tried to a jury, and the jury found Scantibodies liable for retaliation. Following trial, Plaintiffs sought attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 2699, subdivision (g) of PAGA. The trial court determined Plaintiffs did not prevail on their PAGA cause of action, and denied their motion.

Plaintiffs Janette Nolasco and Brenda Taylor (Plaintiffs) sued defendant Scantibodies Laboratory, Inc. (Scantibodies), for retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5. They contended Scantibodies terminated Nolasco and took other adverse actions against Taylor after they disclosed information about the company's specialty plasma program to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and refused to participate in certain practices. A jury found Scantibodies liable for retaliation and awarded Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages.

Appointed counsel for defendant Austin Atherton filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Charles Christopher Reed guilty of arson of a structure and forest land. On appeal, he challenges certain statements the trial court made to the jury pool. He maintains the statements watered down the burden of proof to something close to a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude the trial court’s comments during jury selection did not lessen the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment.

Procedurally, this case is sui generis. Plaintiff Steven Bustillos was employed as an investigator for defendant Shasta County in its prosecutor’s office (the prosecutor’s office is included as a redundant defendant as well). In November 2015, Bustillos was served with notice of an adverse action based on his dishonesty (the details of which are not clear from the petition). In June 2016, defendant Shasta County Employee Appeals Board (Board) upheld a suspension without pay as discipline. Bustillos “admittedly” never sought judicial review of the Board’s decision within the 90-day limitations period. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.6, subd. (b).)

Video surveillance captured Jason Douglas Rowe walking around a grocery store while rubbing his penis through his sweatpants. The form of his erect penis could be seen under his sweatpants. An information charged defendant with burglary with intent to commit indecent exposure and indecent exposure with three prior convictions, but the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the charges, concluding that while the evidence would support a charge of lewd conduct if the People chose to amend, the evidence did not support a charge of indecent exposure.

Defendant Jackie Edward Johnson got into an argument and physical fight with his girlfriend J.H. J.H. picked up their three-month-old son during the fight that continued until the baby appeared to lose consciousness. Defendant and J.H. failed to timely seek medical care for their injured son and he sustained irreversible brain damage. A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of felony child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) and corporal injury on a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The jury found true the allegation of personal infliction of great bodily injury (GBI) on the first count of child endangerment. (§ 122022.7, subd. (d).) The trial court found true allegations that defendant had a serious prior felony (§§ 667, subd. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12) and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to 25 years and 8 months in prison.