CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Abrand Gonzalez on two counts of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, and the court sentenced him to an aggregate state prison term of seven years. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) during the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument, he incorrectly described the meaning of the term “abiding conviction,” thereby misstating the reasonable doubt standard and improperly reducing the prosecution’s burden of proof; (2) the trial court erroneously denied defendant’s post-verdict Marsden motion; and (3) defendant was denied due process at sentencing. We reject all of defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellants Clifton Haralson III and Jahsee Elan Brewster were convicted of pimping, pandering, and trafficking Briana D, a minor. On appeal, they contend the trial court erred in admitting and instructing the jury on text messages between Haralson and Briana, admitting expert testimony on the meaning of those messages, and failing to instruct on the lesser offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. They also argue their convictions for trafficking must be reversed under the Williamson rule (see
In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651), and their sentences are unlawful. Finding appellants’ contentions unmeritorious, we affirm the judgments against them.

Appellant Albert Hernandez appeals following the dismissal of his civil complaint against respondents, Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux, Sheriff’s Deputy Diaz, Tulare County Jail, and Tulare County Human and Health Services. Appellant states he is appealing from “the initial Judgement of June 16, 2015” in this matter, but ultimately contends the trial court wrongly denied his motion to set aside that dismissal. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Aaron Axel Deason (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of committing a lewd or lascivious act on more than one child under 14 years of age, oral copulation of a child 10 years of age or younger, and using a minor to perform sex acts. He was sentenced to a total unstayed term of five years eight months plus 50 years to life in prison and ordered to pay various fees, fines, and assessments. On appeal, he contends: (1) denial of his request to represent himself requires automatic reversal; (2) the trial court erred by excluding evidence that would have impeached one of the complaining witnesses; (3) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of child pornography found on defendant’s laptop computer; (4) the trial court erred by admitting statements made during a forensic interview; (5) CALCRIM No. 1190 improperly reduced the burden of proof; and (6) cumulative prejudice requires reversal. We find no reversible error and affirm.

Appellant/defendant Raymond Tenorio was charged with first degree murder for beating Kirk Haag to death. Haag was a roommate in a residence with defendant and his family. The beating occurred after defendant confronted Haag about accusations that Haag had touched defendant’s young daughter, and Haag allegedly said that he had done so.
Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion. He was sentenced to the second strike term of 17 years in prison.

This is the third appeal brought by defendant Billy Wayne Ciggs, Jr., following his convictions for one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle and four counts of assault with a firearm. In the first appeal, we affirmed the judgment in its entirely. (People v. Ciggs (July 12, 2005, E036083) [nonpub. opn.] (Ciggs I).)
A federal court subsequently granted defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and directed the trial court to resentence defendant on count 2. Defendant appealed from his new sentence and, in the second appeal, this court reversed the judgment in part because the sentences on counts 2 through 5 each incorrectly included an enhancement for the personal use of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Pen. Code, former § 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)) and an enhancement for the use of a firearm during the commission of a violent felony (Pen. Code, § 188.66, subd. (b)(1)(C)). (People v. Ciggs (Feb. 21, 2017, E064606) [nonpub. opn.] (Ciggs II).)

William Grant Crooks appeals an order entered after a jury trial extending his involuntary commitment to a state psychiatric hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b). Crooks contends that substantial evidence did not support the jury's finding that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder, and has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. We affirm.

H.A. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights over B.B. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother, a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Indian Tribe (the Tribe), claims that the juvenile court violated the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and its state equivalent (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.) when it found that Mother's continued custody of B.B. likely would result in serious emotional or physical damage to B.B., both because the court applied an incorrect standard of proof and failed to base its detriment finding on evidence provided by a qualified expert witness. Further, Mother argues that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's finding that active efforts were made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and those efforts proved unsuccessful.

Defendant Cody Ned Ridley was convicted of burglary, false imprisonment, making criminal threats, attempting to dissuade a victim, and violating protective orders, all perpetrated against his estranged wife, Jane Doe. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for attempting to dissuade a victim and for residential burglary. We find substantial evidence supports the jury's findings on both charges. Ridley also contends, and the People agree, that the trial court erred in excluding a prior inconsistent statement proffered by Ridley. We accept the People's concession and find that the error was harmless. We also address sentencing issues raised by the parties and order corrections.

Steven Paul Haynes shot and killed his brother, Michael, in the front yard of their home. Haynes admitted killing Michael, but claimed it was heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter, not murder. Rejecting that contention, a jury convicted him of first degree murder and found true a gun enhancement allegation. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 12022.53, subd. (d).)
In separate proceedings, Haynes admitted a prior serious felony conviction. After granting Haynes's Romero motion, the court sentenced Haynes to prison for five years under section 667, subdivision (a), plus an indeterminate term of 50 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for murder, plus a consecutive 25 years to life for the gun enhancement.

A jury convicted Steven Scott Wells of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and found true an allegation he personally used a deadly weapon (a screwdriver) to commit the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court then found Wells was the defendant in a prior attempted residential burglary case from another county and, after reviewing the record of conviction from the case, the jury found true an allegation Wells was convicted in the case. The conviction qualified as a prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7) and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The court sentenced Wells to 12 years in prison.

This case returns on transfer from the California Supreme Court.
Defendant Christopher David Triplett appeals from partial denial of his petition to recall his sentence and reduce certain felonies to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (the Act). He contends his two convictions for second degree burglary should be reduced to misdemeanors and the trial court erred in relying on facts outside the record and misunderstood the law. He further contends, for the first time on appeal, that two of his one-year prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) should be stricken.

Cipriano Torres Lopez appeals his conviction by plea to one count of forcible lewd conduct upon a child under the age of 14 , two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 with whom appellant lived, and one count of lewd conduct on a child who was 14 or 15 years old. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to 29 years state prison, ordered to pay various fines, fees and restitution, and was advised that he was facing mandatory deportation once the sentence was served. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 4, 2018, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received from appellant.

Defendant Hector Hernandez was charged with possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 1). The information also alleged that on May 15, 2012, he had suffered a prior conviction in case No. TA123182 for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 11351. After a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty as charged and found true the prior conviction allegation. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment of conviction.
Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have reviewed the record, conclude the record reveals no arguable issue on appeal, and thus affirm.