CA Unpub Decisions

On Labor Day weekend 2013, an electrical power surge knocked out a sewage lift pump near the 73 Freeway. The pump was operated by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (the District). The result was 79,000 gallons of raw sewage overflowing into an adjacent storm channel. The sewage then traveled about 150 yards to the Upper Newport Back Bay. Only 2,000 of the 79,000 gallons was recovered. About a year and four months later, on New Year’s Day 2015, a District sewage line plagued by tree roots backed up in the same general area. This time 8,100 gallons of raw sewage made its way into the Back Bay through the same channel. Both overflows lasted less than a day.
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (the Board) sought an administrative fine (called “ACL” by the parties, for “administrative civil liability”) against the District for both overflows. The maximum amount of the fine, based on the statutory limit of $10 per gallon and $10,000 per day (see Water Code, § 13385

Jorge Roberto Castro was convicted of one count of committing a forcible lewd act on a child (his daughter, K.C.) under the age of 14, and one count of assault with intent to commit a sexual offense against her. Both offenses occurred after Castro followed K.C. into the bathroom in the family home at approximately 2:00 a.m., using his foot to prevent her from closing the door to keep him out. The first count pertains to his fondling of her breasts, and the second to his attempt to make her remove her pants.
Castro argues his conviction on the first count must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence he employed force or duress in committing the lewd act of fondling K.C.’s breasts. While Castro concedes there is evidence he used force in connection with the effort to remove her pants, including evidence that K.C. screamed and cried, fought him off, and that he twice bit her, he contends the undisputed evidence establishes all of that occurred after he fondled her breast

Shawn Junior Chandler appeals from a judgment after the jury convicted him of deliberate and premeditated attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon and found true weapon and great bodily injury enhancements. Chandler argues the following: the trial court erred by not granting the jury’s request to readback of closing argument from Chandler, who represented himself; insufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of deliberation and premeditation; the court erred when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM Nos. 603 and 372; and the abstract of judgment has an error that must be corrected.
After oral argument, the parties filed supplemental briefs on the effect of the following: Senate Bill No. 1393 (S.B. 1393), effective January 1, 2019, which in relevant part amended Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (a), and 1385, subdivision (b); and Assembly Bill No. 1810, effective June 27, 2018, which in relevant part enacted Penal Code section 1001.36.

Michael Bakkers appeals from a judgment after the trial court ruled in favor of his father, Paul Bakkers, on his complaint for cancellation of interest and quiet title. Michael argues the trial court erred because its factual findings are inconsistent with its legal conclusions and it failed to make crucial findings. As we explain below, the record does not include a reporter’s transcript, and reversible error does not appear on the face of the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, L.R., appeals from an order committing her to the California Department of Developmental Services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, et seq. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jonathan Noe Luevanos asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

Appellant Steven Charles Aguilar pled guilty to evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2/count 3) and admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
On June 26, 2018, Aguilar’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. Aguilar has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. However, on November 7, 2018, this court issued a letter to the parties directing them to file a letter brief addressing whether the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence by its failure to address victim restitution at Aguilar’s sentencing hearing.
In a brief filed on November 27, 2018, Aguilar contends: (1) the court did not impose an unauthorized sentence by its failure to address victim restitution;

Appellant Jarrod Ernest Spencer Hayes appeals from the court’s denial of his motion to strike two firearm enhancements imposed in this case. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appellant/defendant Terry Lovell Broadus was arrested in Fresno County sitting in a stolen car that had been carjacked in Tulare County; the vehicle contained items that had been taken in a robbery in Fresno. The Fresno robbery was linked to an attempted robbery and another robbery in Fresno that occurred a few days earlier.
Defendant was initially charged with several offenses in the Superior Court of Tulare County based on the carjacking. He waived a preliminary hearing, pleaded no contest to the charges, and was sentenced to state prison. In the meantime, a complaint had been filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County that charged him with two robberies and an attempted robbery, and it was pending at the time of his plea in the Tulare County case.

Appellant/defendant Luis Anthony Moreno had five prior convictions for driving under the influence and had been admonished that he could be charged with murder if he killed someone as a result of driving under the influence. Despite these warnings, he was driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.32 percent, four times the legal limit, and crossed over the center line and crashed into a Toyota that had been lawful traveling in the opposite traffic lane. The driver of the Toyota, Yee Her, was seriously injured and his wife and passenger, Blia Vang, was killed.

At the conclusion of a jury trial, defendant Stephanie Banks was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1), domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 2), and obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). The jury also found true enhancements alleging that Banks personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) on the victim in counts 1 and 2, and personally used a weapon in count 2 (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that Banks had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)), both based on a prior conviction for robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (b)).

Frankie Lon Hicks appeals his conviction for special circumstance murder as well as his sentence (life without parole, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for a firearm enhancement attached to the murder charge). Hicks challenges defense counsel’s waiver of reporting of jury selection proceedings, raises several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and argues that the statute mandating a sentence of life without parole for special circumstance murder is unconstitutional. We reject all of these contentions. Hicks also argues that a recent ameliorative amendment to the relevant firearm enhancement statute applies retroactively to his case, requiring remand for resentencing. We agree with Hicks on this point and, accordingly, vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

Defendant and appellant Enrique Perez tortured and abused his girlfriend’s two-year-old son. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant eventually pled no contest to torture (Pen. Code, § 206; count 1) and lewd or lascivious act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a); count 5). In return, the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to a stipulated term of eight years on count 5 plus life with the possibility of parole on count 1. Defendant was awarded 1,526 days of credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant London Grays choked and pushed his girlfriend, stole her cellular phone, and destroyed cabinetry following an argument. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant eventually pled no contest to corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), in exchange for an indicated sentence of four years in state prison and dismissal of the remaining allegations. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to four years in state prison with 561 days of credit for time served, and dismissed the remaining counts and enhancement allegations. Defendant appeals from the judgment, challenging the validity of the plea. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.