CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Orlandous Tyrone Jackett of the first degree murder of Xavier F. (the victim) (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and found true an attached gang enhancement allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that he had personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The jury also convicted him of three counts each of possessing a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(l); counts 2, 3, and 7), and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a); counts 4-6). Jackett later admitted one strike prior conviction, one serious felony prior conviction, and three prison prior convictions. He also admitted that he was released on bail when he committed the murder. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of nine years plus 75 years to life in prison and a determinate term of 16 years four months in prison.

A jury convicted defendant Joseph Deandrea Spillers of robbery, carjacking, unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle, receiving a stolen vehicle, theft by false pretenses, domestic violence with a prior domestic violence conviction, and misdemeanor possession of heroin. The trial court sentenced him to 12 years 4 months in state prison.
Defendant now contends there is insufficient evidence to support the carjacking conviction. Finding no merit to the contention, we will affirm the judgment.

Eric B. (the minor) was detained at birth due primarily to mother’s substance abuse. Mother’s parental rights to two other children had been previously terminated. Father is a registered sex offender with mental health issues. Prior to the minor’s birth, the parents had attempted to make arrangements to have L.A., the fiancée of mother’s cousin, be the minor’s guardian. The paperwork, however, was not completed before the minor was born. The minor was placed in a foster home and the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (the Department) began assessment of L.A.’s home for placement.
The juvenile court took jurisdiction and bypassed parents for reunification services at disposition. The Department ultimately recommended against placement of the minor with L.A. Hearing on the matter took place concurrently with the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.

Plaintiff Christina C. sought a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 to restrain her neighbors, defendant V.L. and defendant’s 15-year-old son, A.V., from harassing her and her minor son, A.C. The trial court granted Christina C.’s petition, ordering V.L., among other things, not to harass or intimidate her, A.C., or other family members.
V.L. appeals the civil harassment restraining order, arguing that she was denied her constitutional right to due process because she had no fair and meaningful opportunity to be heard. Finding no merit to her contention, we affirm.

Defendant Raymond William Campbell was found guilty of several offenses, including making a criminal threat under Penal Code section 422. He was sentenced to serve five years eight months in prison.
Defendant contends (1) insufficient evidence supports his criminal threats conviction because no evidence showed he made a threat that had an imminent prospect of execution and (2) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on attempted criminal threats as a lesser included offense to the criminal threats charge. We conclude sufficient evidence supports defendant’s criminal threats conviction, and the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats. We affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Laterrial Desmones Jones of battery and criminal threats against his wife. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years eight months in prison, consisting of the following: 32 months (the low-term doubled) for the criminal threats, plus five years for the prior conviction alleged on that count, and a concurrent term of six months for the battery.

At about 10:00 p.m. on the Fourth of July, the victim was struck and killed by a motorcycle while standing in the road in front of a house in the Happy Valley area of Shasta County. She was in the roadway talking to defendant Justin Creed Arrowsmith, who stopped his ATV in the road in front of the house in order to talk to her. As they spoke, the motorcycle pulled out of a driveway a short distance away, accelerated, and drove into both the ATV and the victim. Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the collision, left the scene on foot before emergency responders arrived.

In December 2010, the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (the District) closed a gate in a storm water drainage system it owned so it could make repairs. The closed gate caused storm water to flood and damage Cleo Johnson’s real property, as well as her personal property and the personal property of her son, Richard Johnson, and that of Richard’s fiancé, Jessica Marquez. We will collectively refer to the plaintiffs as Johnson unless it is necessary to be more specific.

Appellant Wendi W. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders declaring her infant daughter Melissa to be a dependent of the court, removing Melissa from her custody, and according her monitored visitation. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), that mother’s mental and emotional health problems placed Melissa at risk of serious physical harm and that Melissa’s father, Mario M. (father), failed to protect Melissa by allowing mother to have unlimited access to her. Mother further contends substantial evidence does not support the dispositional order removing Melissa from her custody, or alternatively, that the order for monitored visitation should be reversed.
We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

Defendant Professional Builders, Inc. (Builders) appeals from the trial court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion to strike the breach of contract cause of action in the complaint brought by its insurer, plaintiff Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (Navigators). Navigators’s complaint is based on Builders’s behavior in an underlying action in which Builders was sued by the owner of an apartment building for damages to the building. Navigators provided a defense in the case and ultimately settled the case with the building’s owner, both under a reservation of rights. Navigators subsequently brought this action seeking reimbursement for the costs of defense and settlement.

Crystal M. (mother) appeals from a judgment declaring her child, Perl M., a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c). Mother contends that the jurisdictional findings under section 300 were improper as a matter of law, and that substantial evidence did not support the court’s jurisdictional or dispositional findings.
We find no error and therefore affirm the judgment.

Alexander Collin Baker (Alex) appeals from a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued against him for the protection of his former wife, Clara Veseliza Baker (Clara), after a contested hearing. We find no error, therefore we affirm the order.

Defendant and appellant Devin Leeizacc Humphreys (defendant) appeals from his felony assault and sex offense convictions. He contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1101 and 1108; failing to exclude rebuttal evidence as a discovery violation sanction; instructional error, including giving an instruction regarding consciousness of guilt; limiting impeachment evidence; and improperly consolidating two separately filed cases. Defendant also contends that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived him of his rights to due process and a fair trial. We find all of defendant’s contentions to be without merit, and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Lorenzo McClain asserted claims for malicious prosecution and defamation of credit against Persolve, LLC arising from a lawsuit filed by Persolve to collect an outstanding debt allegedly owed by McClain for dental work. Following the presentation of evidence at trial, the trial court granted Persolve’s motion for directed verdict and entered judgment in Persolve’s favor. McClain appeals, claiming the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict in his favor.
We disagree. Probable cause supported Persolve’s underlying lawsuit against McClain as a matter of law, which defeats his malicious prosecution claim. McClain concedes his common law defamation of credit claim is preempted by federal law, and we find he forfeited his argument that this claim was actually based on a violation of Civil Code section 1785.25, given that he failed to argue that in the trial court. We therefore affirm.