CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Deniz Bolbol challenges the superior court’s denial of her 2016 motion to dissolve an injunction that had been issued in 2013. She claims that the court should have dissolved the injunction based on evidence she presented in support of her motion challenging the credibility of the testimony upon which the 2013 injunction was based. We find no abuse of discretion in the superior court’s decision to deny her motion, and we affirm its order.

Defendants Juan Fonseca and Ernesto Gonzales, along with several other men, came up with a plan to break into Gary Wise’s house while he was away and steal valuables from his two safes. On the day of the crime, everything initially went as planned. The men, including defendants, broke into Wise’s house after ensuring he had left for the evening. While inside, they discovered they were unable to move or open Wise’s safes. Undeterred, the men decided to wait for Wise to return home, and when he did they ambushed him, beat him, and tortured him until he provided the combinations to his safes. After the safes were opened, the men took the items stored inside. As they left, the men stole Wise’s truck, which they drove into the mountains and burned.

Rafael Vargas was convicted of attempted second degree robbery and sentenced to formal probation for three years. He appeals, arguing the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during closing argument. Specifically, Vargas complains it was improper for the prosecutor to tell the jury that his claim of severe intoxication at the time of the alleged robbery, causing him to black out and not remember anything, was not a defense to the charge.
We find no misconduct. The prosecutor’s argument to the jury was consistent with the law precluding the defense of unconsciousness in cases such as this, where the defendant’s claimed intoxication was voluntary. Although Vargas could have relied on this claim to suggest his intention during the incident had been to do something other than commit a robbery, he could not rely on it to support an argument that he lacked capacity to form any conscious intent and thus had none at all.

Adolpho Rosales was convicted on charges of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)/(b)(2)(A)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364 (subd. (a)), after he was discovered by a homeowner inside her home in the middle of the night, and then fled. Shortly thereafter, he was apprehended by police while hiding in a nearby bush, where he had attempted to bury a knife in his possession.
Rosales argues his conviction must be reversed because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could not consider his voluntary intoxication in determining whether his acts of fleeing the scene or hiding evidence demonstrated “he was aware of his guilt.” We disagree. The jury was instructed it could consider his voluntary intoxication only in deciding whether he entered the residence with the intent to commit a theft.

Appellant has requested that our opinion, filed on January 10, 2019, be certified for publication. Our opinion does not meet the standards set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), and the author is concerned that the burgeoning number of reported decisions has already become a near-unmanageable burden for attorneys. The request is DENIED.

Plaintiff Richard Castaneda (Richard) sued defendant Westco Equities, Inc. (Westco) for breach of contract. The case was ordered to arbitration and Westco obtained an arbitration award in its favor. Richard appeals from the judgment entered upon the superior court’s order granting Westco’s request to confirm the arbitration award and denying Richard’s request to vacate it.
One of the statutory grounds for granting a party’s request to vacate an arbitration award is that “the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2. subd. (5).) In this case, the arbitrator prejudicially denied Richard’s request for a postponement to complete discovery, despite his showing of sufficient cause.

Defendant and appellant Isaac Tommy Flores and another man stole an ice machine from a church. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted that he had suffered one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). In return, the remaining enhancement allegations were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to two years eight months in state prison with credit for time served. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to relieve his appointed counsel and to withdraw his plea. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s requests. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his no contest plea and motion for substitute counsel. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Joseph Albert Flores, of one count of second degree robbery of a department store loss prevention employee. (Pen. Code, § 211.) In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted he committed the robbery while released on bail (§ 12022.1) and had four prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court struck a fifth prison prior allegation and sentenced defendant to seven years in prison, comprised of the low term of two years for the robbery, two years for the out-on-bail enhancement, and three years (one year each) for the first three prison priors. The court did not impose sentence on the fourth prison prior.

Ivan David Lopez pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(1)). At sentencing, Lopez was granted probation on various terms and conditions, including being subject to a criminal protective order. On appeal, Lopez makes three contentions: (1) the court failed to state any statutory basis for the base fine and penalty assessment imposed at sentencing, (2) the protective order includes conditions that were not imposed by the court, and (3) the order granting probation fails to reflect the court's stay of payment of probation costs.
As we explain, we agree the matter should be remanded to allow the trial court to state the factual basis for the base fine and penalty assessment and to clarify the conditions of the protective order imposed on Lopez, including those not recited at the sentencing. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

By way of a first amended information, the People charged Jeremy Joseph Robbins with one count of murder, together with a prior strike and a prior serious felony allegation. After a jury was unable to reach a verdict on the murder charge, the trial court declared a mistrial.
Prior to the retrial, the trial court granted the People's request to file a second amended information to add a count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, and an accompanying great bodily injury enhancement allegation. A jury found Robbins not guilty of murder, but guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. With respect to count 2, the jury found Robbins guilty of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, and found true the accompanying great bodily injury enhancement allegation. The court sentenced Robbins to 16 years in prison on count 2.

In case No. 16F7631, a felony complaint was filed on December 8, 2016, that charged defendant Vaughn Glen Pyke with residential burglary with a person present, a serious and violent felony and alleged that when he committed the offense he was out on bail or his own recognizance.
On October 2, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court struck the “person present” allegation from the residential burglary charge (which eliminated the “violent felony” allegation, but not the “serious felony” allegation) and dismissed the on-bail enhancement, and allowed the People to amend the complaint to charge second degree commercial burglary as count 2. The court advised defendant that he would receive felony probation, and if he successfully completed probation, he would be permitted to withdraw his plea to the residential burglary count. Defendant thereafter pled no contest to both counts.

Defendant Jesse Brewer Armitage was detained after he fled from approaching police officers investigating a possible purse-snatching. A search of his pockets uncovered a cell phone tying him to a burglary from the day before. In the criminal proceeding that followed, defendant filed a motion to suppress the cell phone evidence, arguing his detention was unlawful and the evidence flowing therefrom was, therefore, inadmissible. The trial court denied the motion and a jury later found defendant guilty of first degree robbery, first degree residential burglary, and obstructing a peace officer, a misdemeanor.

In this consolidated appeal, defendants Jenna Louisa Rojas Garcia and Johnny James Wolchow challenge their convictions for first degree residential burglary and attempted first degree burglary. Defendants each contend they were improperly convicted of both completed burglary and attempted burglary; the People concede. The People also agree with defendants’ contention that the trial court incorrectly calculated their presentence custody credits. Defendants further contend the trial court erred in excluding a portion of a statement by a companion as inadmissible hearsay. We will strike the attempted burglary conviction, remand for the trial court to recalculate the custody credit, and otherwise affirm.

Defendant Michael Allen Bradley and several cohorts targeted two Hispanic men -- C. L. and M. S. -- to rob. Codefendant Kayla Tanner contacted each man on Facebook and lured them to a residence in Redding under the guise of a sexual encounter. Once there, the group robbed the men, taking their money and cars, and held them hostage while they used their debit cards to purchase merchandise.
All of the perpetrators entered plea agreements except defendant. A jury found him guilty of residential robbery in concert, kidnapping for purposes of robbery, kidnapping for purposes of carjacking, carjacking, and false imprisonment by violence. Hate crime enhancements and personal use of a deadly weapon enhancements as to both victims were also found true, and defendant admitted having two prior strikes, two prior prison terms, and two prior serious felony convictions.