CA Unpub Decisions

Following entry of a negotiated plea to carrying a concealed firearm on his person, the minor Joseph C. challenges the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Jess Albert James Giger, Jr., guilty of two counts of assault. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his request to impeach the victim with the victim’s conviction for violating Fish and Game Code section 3004. He also contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive terms without stating reasons and that, if his counsel failed to object to the trial court’s decision without stating its reasons, he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because (1) Fish and Game Code section 3004 is not a conviction evidencing moral turpitude, (2) defendant has forfeited his claim that the trial court erred by not stating its reasons expressly for imposing consecutive sentences, and (3) defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because he has not shown prejudice from his attorney’s failure to object to the lack of an express statement of reasons by the trial court for its sentence, we affirm the judgment.

This dependency appeal arises out of the juvenile court’s custody determination at a status review hearing. Father William R. challenges the juvenile court’s determination that it would be detrimental to return his son Nathaniel to his care and custody. We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s detriment finding and affirm the juvenile court’s order placing Nathaniel outside of father’s custody.

Johnny Foster appeals from the denial of his petition for recall of his third strike sentence for possession of a sharp instrument while confined in county jail. Because Foster was armed with a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense, he is ineligible for recall of his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36). Therefore, we affirm the order of denial.

The question presented is whether this court should decide an issue that has become moot since the notices of appeal were filed. Parents argue that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings stigmatize them. Specifically, the juvenile court found that 16-year-old Alyssa’s parents failed to protect her from undisputed sexual abuse she suffered for at least six years at the hands of her older brother. Since the filing of the notices of appeal, the juvenile court has terminated jurisdiction and returned Alyssa to her parents’ custody. Parents nonetheless want this court to review and overturn the juvenile court’s findings and order. For the reasons set out below, we decline to do so and dismiss Mother’s and Father’s appeals as moot.

Plaintiff Francine Silver appeals from the judgment entered following the trial court’s granting of a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants and respondents GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC) and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen). The trial court found Silver’s complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure was barred under the doctrine of res judicata, based on a prior New York bankruptcy case. Silver contends it would be inequitable to apply res judicata in this case, because she did not have a fair opportunity to litigate her claim. We disagree and affirm.

A grocery store’s customer sued the store after she slipped in a puddle of clear liquid while shopping. The trial court granted summary judgment to the store, and the customer appeals. We conclude that there are no triable issues of fact as to the store’s liability, and affirm.

The juvenile court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant E.B. resisted a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) On appeal, E.B. does not challenge the merits of the adjudication but asks us independently to review the record of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion. (Pitchess v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).) We have done so, and we conclude the trial court did not provide a sufficient record for meaningful review. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s true finding and remand to the trial court for a new Pitchess in camera hearing in which proper procedures are followed and an adequate record is made for review. (See People v. Wycoff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 410.)

Jurors convicted defendant Amanda Escobedo of robbery, rejecting her mistaken identity defense. At trial, defendant argued that jurors should discredit two eyewitness identifications of defendant. The jury verdict indicated that jurors found one or both eyewitnesses credible. On appeal, defendant argues the eyewitnesses lacked credibility. We reject defendant’s attempt to relitigate credibility on appeal. “Issues of witness credibility are for the jury.” (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 480.) We affirm the judgment.

Julius Marquis Roberts (Roberts) pled no contest to continuous sexual abuse of a child. The trial court placed Roberts on probation for five years. The trial court later revoked Roberts’s probation at a probation revocation hearing and imposed the midterm sentence of 12 years. Roberts appeals the judgment on the basis that the admission of hearsay testimony violated his rights under the United States Constitution, resulting in the imposition of a harsher sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Shicorey L. Smith appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of second degree robbery and carrying a loaded firearm. Smith requests that we independently review the transcript from the trial court’s Pitchess hearing. Smith also requests that we remand so the trial court may exercise its discretion under amended Penal Code section 12022.53 to strike his 10-year firearm enhancement. The Attorney General (respondent) does not oppose either request.

Appellants Michael Mosby and Mariah Jiles were jointly charged with the attempted premeditated murder of Leon Merritt (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subdivision (a)) , shooting into an occupied vehicle (§ 246), and felony child endangerment (§ 2273a, subd. (a)). The information alleged that during the commission of the attempted murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle, Jiles personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and that Mosby committed a crime in which a principal was armed with a firearm. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022, subd. (a)(1).)

A jury convicted Jaime Martin (“defendant”) of criminal threats and assault by means likely to achieve great bodily injury. Applying the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (b)-(j), 667, subds. (a)-(d)) , the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent prison sentences of 30 years to life for each crime. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss his two prior “strikes,” (2) his resulting 30-year sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and (3) he is entitled to remand for a new sentencing hearing pursuant to recently enacted Senate Bill 1393 that grants trial courts the discretion to dismiss prior “serious” felony allegations. Only the last claim has merit. Because we are unable to say that there is “no reasonable possibility” that the trial court would decline to exercise its newfound sentencing discretion, we vacate the judgment and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

The trial court revoked appellant Jason Green’s parole based on credible evidence that his wife kept a gun in their bedroom closet without his knowledge. Because, as the attorney general concedes, appellant violated his parole only if he had knowledge that the gun was present, we reverse.