CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Vincent Maurice Johnson (defendant) of injuring a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)), and the trial court sentenced him to prison for 35 years to life. On appeal, defendant challenges three of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and levels three challenges at his sentence. Only two of these claims has merit: He is entitled to a remand to have the trial court exercise its newfound discretion to strike the allegations that he has suffered two prior “serious” felony convictions under Senate Bill 1393, and he is entitled to a re-calculation of his custody credits. We otherwise affirm.

Oscar Hernandez Valles appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189), and found true an allegation that he used a deadly weapon—a knife—to commit his crime (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to 16 years to life in prison. Valles contends: (1) the court erred when it excluded evidence related to his defense, (2) the court erroneously admitted evidence of his prior possession of a knife, and (3) insufficient evidence supports his conviction. We affirm.

Michelle Pont appeals from a $90,000 award in attorney fees and costs in favor of her ex-spouse Jeffery Pont. The parties were initially engaged in a marital proceeding, which they resolved by entering into a stipulated judgment. That judgment included a release, continued family law court enforcement jurisdiction, and attorney fees to the prevailing party who was “forced to seek” court intervention to enforce the stipulated judgment.

Plaintiffs and appellants City of Carlsbad (City) and Carlsbad Municipal Water District (District) (collectively, Carlsbad) appeal a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent California State Water Resources Control Board (Board) in an action for declaratory relief.
To qualify for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, a plaintiff is required to show the action presents two essential elements: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party. (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546.) Due to Carlsbad’s failure to show the existence of an actual controversy, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the Board. We affirm.

Family Code section 852, subdivision (a) (section 852(a)) provides that a “transmutation,” or an interspousal transaction changing the character of community or separate property, “is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration” by the adversely affected spouse. (Italics added.) In Estate of MacDonald (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262 (MacDonald), our Supreme Court held that a writing satisfies the “express declaration” requirement only if it states on its face that “the characterization or ownership of the property is being changed.” (Id. at p. 272.) The MacDonald court also made clear that its construction of section 852(a) precludes the use of extrinsic evidence to prove an ambiguous writing effected a transmutation. (Id. at p. 264; In re Marriage of Benson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1096, 1100 (Benson).)

Defendants Morgan Bitson and her boyfriend Tristian Bennett killed Bitson’s four-year-old son Major Woods. The fatal blow severed Woods’s liver in two, causing him to bleed profusely. Prior to that time, defendants inflicted many additional wounds on Woods. While in their care, Woods suffered broken ribs, burn marks, bruises, a broken arm, and the loss of vision. Defendants restricted Woods’s food, causing him to suffer from hunger and chronic stress and to lose muscle tissue. Although the evidence did not show if Bitson or Bennett inflicted the fatal blow, the overwhelming evidence demonstrated that both abused him; one or both inflicted the fatal wound; and both lied about the events causing Woods’s death.

Defendants and appellants, Alonzo Harris and Floyd Nelson, appealed their convictions for charges arising out of a series of robberies, attempted robberies, and associated crimes. In an unpublished opinion filed on August 29, 2017, we affirmed the judgment as to Harris. As to Nelson, we modified the judgment, affirmed it as modified, and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. The matter came before us a second time after our Supreme Court granted appellants’ petitions for review, transferred the matter back to us, and directed us to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of the enactment of Senate Bill No. 620, which gave trial courts discretion to strike or dismiss certain firearm enhancements. In an unpublished opinion issued on August 20, 2018, we affirmed Nelson’s convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 620.

Tremayne Collier appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed following remand. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the appellate record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.

Juan Baeza-Pacheco (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and the trial court placed him on probation for two years. He contends the court: (1) abused its discretion in denying his motion to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor; and (2) erred in ordering him to pay a presentence report fee and a booking fee. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Roberto Sanchez-Herrera appeals from the sentence imposed on him after he pleaded no contest to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358, subdivision (d) for marijuana cultivation with environmental violations as part of a negotiated disposition of his case. Defendant contends the $8,000 environmental penalty that the court imposed, which was within the range of the penalty he agreed the court could impose, violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 9; Cal. Const., art. I, § 9.) We conclude defendant’s appeal must be dismissed because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, which is a prerequisite to his appeal because he challenges an integral part of the plea agreement.

James Edward Collins, Jr., was convicted of threatening and beating his wife (Jane Doe) and threatening and endangering his teenage son (D.D.) during an altercation outside D.D.’s school. Collins argues the court erred in admitting prior incidents of domestic violence pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1101, subdivision (b) and 1109. We affirm.

Objector Christopher Chamberlin appeals from the probate court’s order approving the final accounting and report for the estate of his mother, Sylvia Jane Levin Chamberlin (Estate). The order includes (1) $16,641.03 awarded to the executor (Sylvia’s brother Michael Levin) as reimbursement for payments advanced on behalf of the Estate, along with $5,553.20 for his personal expenses; (2) attorney fees to Levin’s attorney, consisting of $13,399.28 in statutory fees and $27,372.50 in extraordinary fees; and (3) reimbursement to Christopher of $9,114.14 out of the $15,004.05 he claimed he was owed for his own Estate-related advances. On appeal, Christopher contends the court erred in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on various accounting and disbursement issues. In a cross-appeal, claimants Don Partier and Richard Chamberlin challenge the court’s denial of a request to charge Christopher’s interest in the Estate for attorney fees incurred as a result of his alleg

A jury convicted appellant of three felony counts of intimidation of a witness by force or threat of force (Pen. Code § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of eight years in prison. In this court, appellant contends he was denied a fair trial because of erroneous evidence rulings and a mistake in a jury instruction. He also contends the trial court erred by enhancing his sentence because of a prior juvenile adjudication. We affirm.

Sonny Joseph Anderson appeals from convictions of second degree murder, evading an officer and causing death, evading an officer against traffic, leaving the scene of an accident, and assault on a police dog. He contends the trial court erred in failing to give a necessary jury instruction on consideration of the charged murder and a lesser offense, and in its instructions regarding an uncharged offense. He also argues the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for assault on a police dog. We affirm.