CA Unpub Decisions

On November 21, 2016, defendant and appellant, Anthony Michael Smith, pled guilty to accessory after the fact (count 2; Pen. Code, § 32) and receiving stolen property exceeding $950 (count 3; § 496, subd. (a)). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court imposed a sentence of three years eight months of incarceration, of which the court suspended three years seven months and placed defendant on mandatory supervision. After the filing of a second petition for revocation of defendant’s mandatory supervision, the court found defendant in violation of his mandatory supervision and sentenced him to the previously suspended term of three years eight months of incarceration.

Plaintiff and appellant, Marshall-Alan Gidney, sued defendant and respondent, City of Bishop (the City), for libel. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend. Gidney appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after these events. We affirm.

A jury convicted Monica Hernandez Benavidez of murder (Pen. Code, §187, subd. (a); count 1); gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a); count 2); driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 3); and driving while having 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in her blood causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b); count 4). As to count 2, the jury found true that Benavidez had a prior conviction for driving under the influence within the meaning of section 191.5, subdivision (d). The jury also found, as to counts 3 and 4, Benavidez intentionally inflicted great bodily injury resulting in permanent paralysis within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (b) and personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). In addition, Benavidez pled guilty to driving on a suspended driver's license. (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a); count

Defendant Michael Raymond Bauer, a registered sex offender (former Pen. Code, § 290, subds. (b) & (c)), appeals an order finding him in violation of his conditions of parole following an evidentiary hearing in which defendant represented himself. Defendant's obligation to register as a sex offender arose from his conviction for forcibly putting his hands down the pants of a seven-year-old boy and touching the boy's penis, skin-on-skin, in a McDonald's restaurant bathroom. (See People v. Bauer (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 150, 153; see also Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) After serving six years in prison, defendant was released on parole in July 2015.

Appointed counsel for defendant Thomas James Medlock asks 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 will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Appointed counsel for defendant Shannon Marie Silva has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Adrian Terrell Sherman asks 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 will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

After defendant Lindsay Dyan Himmelspach pled guilty to two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (Penal Code, § 261.5, subdivision (c)), the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on three years’ formal probation. The court did not decide at the change of plea hearing or the sentencing hearing where it granted probation, whether to order sex offender registration pursuant to section 290.
Subsequently, defendant violated probation. The trial court reinstated probation, but simultaneously imposed a section 290 registration requirement. Defendant appeals from the order reinstating probation with modifications.

Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court sustained a delinquency petition brought pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 602, finding that the minor I.P. committed robbery against a victim over the age of 65. The juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation in his mother’s custody, subject to 141 days in juvenile hall with 141 days of predisposition credit. The juvenile court did not set a maximum term of confinement.
The minor now contends (1) the juvenile court erred in failing to set a maximum term of confinement, (2) it should have awarded two more days of predisposition credit, and (3) the dispositional order must be corrected because the minor did not plead to the offense. We conclude the trial court was not required to set a maximum term of confinement because the minor was not removed from parental custody.

Defendants Michelle Okumura and Jeremy McMahon held Eric Jackson captive for multiple days after they tied him naked to a massage table at gunpoint. When he attempted to gain his freedom by promising to give them money buried on his property, Okumura went to Jackson’s home and unsuccessfully dug for the buried loot. Defendants then tortured Jackson by placing hot butter knives on his chest, burning an asterisk pattern into his skin. When Jackson later tried to escape, McMahon shot and killed him. Defendants’ resulting police interviews were riddled with inconsistent statements regarding the events leading to Jackson’s death.

Plaintiff KVB, Inc. (KVB) and defendant County of Glenn (County) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) under which the parties agreed to work toward development and completion of a new wastewater facility. A key objective of the project was to reduce costs for County residents; this was to be achieved in part by designing a project that would accept an out-of-county waste stream. Another feature of the project emphasized by KVB was that the facility would be located on land controlled by KVB.
The County selected an outside environmental consulting firm to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) and KVB was obliged to pay for this review. (See California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The EIR was circulated for public comment and approved by the County’s Planning Commission. An appeal was taken to the County’s Board of Supervisors (Board).

Following a mistrial on two counts and an acquittal of one count, a second jury convicted defendant Heriberto Mendoza of two counts of committing lewd acts on his granddaughter when she was between six and eight years old. Defendant raises instructional and evidentiary error primarily involving the admission of evidence of uncharged acts and the acts involving the count he was acquitted of in the first trial. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

After a change of venue to Sacramento County, a jury found defendant Quentin Ray Bealer guilty of the first degree murder in 2013 of a 14-year-old high school student in Red Bluff. The trial court, sitting in Tehama County, sentenced defendant to state prison for an indeterminate life term. Defendant appealed in September 2016; his briefing was complete in July 2018 upon his failure to file a reply brief.
Defendant contends the trial court erroneously allowed the introduction of character evidence regarding his sexual conduct with a former girlfriend that indicated a predilection for a girl in her teens, and contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support the various theories of first degree murder on which the trial court instructed the jury. We shall affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Matthew Ziert fell while performing his pest control job on the premises of defendant Young’s Lockeford Payless Market, Inc. The jury found defendant negligently caused injury to plaintiff but awarded damages only for plaintiff’s medical copayments. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, arguing substantial evidence demanded a larger verdict, and the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657; further undesignated statutory references are to this Code unless otherwise indicated.) Plaintiff also challenges the court’s award of costs to defendant for plaintiff’s failure to obtain a verdict higher than defendant’s pretrial settlement offer (§ 998).