CA Unpub Decisions

On June 18, 2018, appellant fired multiple rounds at unmarked police cars as the officers attempted to perform a vehicle containment technique on the car appellant was riding in. The officers were members of a multi-agency task force investigating several gang-related incidents of violence throughout the month of June 2018. The violence was believed to be part of an ongoing feud between two rival street gangs—the HOGGs and Decoto—after the murder of HOGGs member Teddy Mejia in 2015 by suspected Decoto gang members.
Task force officers observed confrontational social media interactions between the rival gang members showing known gang members referring to rivals and displaying gang signs and hand signs intended to show disrespect. These posts included photographs of appellant and other HOGGs members making gang signs and displaying guns. Appellant also shared snippets of gangster rap videos made by him or his father, a well-known HOGGs member.

Defendant was charged with and pled open to one felony count of driving under the influence causing injury, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a), and one felony count of driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 percent or greater causing injury, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (b). As to both counts, he further admitted that he had personally inflicted great bodily injury on a victim, in violation of section 12022.7, subdivision (a), and caused bodily injury to more than one victim, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23558. Defendant stipulated that there was a factual basis for his guilty pleas, based on the evidence at the preliminary hearing. The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that defendant was intoxicated when he drove into a Mack truck parked at the side of Evans Avenue in San Francisco.

In 2005, following a jury trial, Higuera and three other defendants were convicted of first degree murder. The jury found true a special circumstance allegation that Higuera and his codefendants intentionally killed the victim while they were active participants in a criminal street gang and that the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). At trial, the prosecution advanced three theories of liability for murder: (1) that each defendant was the actual perpetrator; (2) that each defendant was a direct aider and abettor; and (3) that each defendant was an indirect aider and abettor of one of five “target crimes” under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
The trial court sentenced Higuera to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This court affirmed Higuera’s conviction in a 2009 unpublished opinion. (People v. Amante (Sept. 3, 2009, A113655).)

In 2005, following a jury trial, Cardenas and three other defendants were convicted of first degree murder. The jury found true a special circumstance allegation that Cardenas and his codefendants intentionally killed the victim while they were active participants in a criminal street gang and that the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). At trial, the prosecution advanced three theories of liability for murder: (1) that each defendant was the actual perpetrator; (2) that each defendant was a direct aider and abettor; and (3) that each defendant was an indirect aider and abettor of one of five “target crimes” under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
The trial court sentenced Cardenas to 25 years to life in prison for first degree murder and 10 years for the gang enhancement (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)).

Defendant was charged by information with one felony count of willfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in traumatic injury on H.T., a person with whom he had been in a dating relationship (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1); count one). The charges stemmed from an incident in August 2020 in which defendant allegedly punched H.T. several times during an argument. The information further alleged that defendant committed the offense within seven years of two prior domestic violence convictions under sections 243, subdivision (e)(1), in 2015 and 2017, and a prior conviction under 273.5, subdivision (a), in 2016.
The trial court bifurcated adjudication of the prior conviction allegations, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial on count one. At trial, the jury heard testimony from two witnesses: H.T., and Lake County Sheriff’s Deputy Brigham Reese, the officer who was dispatched to the scene of the incident.

Because this case comes after the trial court sustained Shellpoint’s demurrer, we draw the facts from the properly pleaded material facts in the second amended complaint. (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 916.)
Beatriz Peralta took out a loan to buy a property in Hercules, and the loan was secured by a deed of trust on the property. By 2016, Shellpoint was the servicer on the loan.
Beatriz was current on the loan until February 2018, when she became ill. She passed away in August 2018. Beatriz requested a loan modification with Shellpoint before her death, but Shellpoint failed to appoint a single point of contact to communicate with her about foreclosure alternatives.
Sometime after Beatriz’s death, her son Robert Peralta notified Shellpoint that Beatriz had died and the property had been transferred to him, qualifying him as her successor in interest.

M.T. dated Trammel for 5 years. In June 2017, the two had an argument and, according to M.T., Trammel “plugged in an iron and burnt me on my arm with it and beat my knees several times with it.” M.T. took photographs of her injuries but did not report the abuse or leave Trammel because she was scared. After an argument on October 18, 2019, Trammel punched M.T. repeatedly in the knee with his fists. He used “[a] lot” of force and her pain was “about a 10” on a scale of one to ten. M.T. again documented the injury.
Several days later, M.T. was walking home—after apparently having been gone “too long”—when she felt something hit her head, turned around, and saw Trammel. They started fighting but then Trammel ran off. As M.T. gathered her personal items and resumed her walk home, Trammel returned in a car. He opened the car door, and “drug” her inside. She did not go willingly and told him to leave her alone.

M.T. dated Trammel for 5 years. In June 2017, the two had an argument and, according to M.T., Trammel “plugged in an iron and burnt me on my arm with it and beat my knees several times with it.” M.T. took photographs of her injuries but did not report the abuse or leave Trammel because she was scared. After an argument on October 18, 2019, Trammel punched M.T. repeatedly in the knee with his fists. He used “[a] lot” of force and her pain was “about a 10” on a scale of one to ten. M.T. again documented the injury.
Several days later, M.T. was walking home—after apparently having been gone “too long”—when she felt something hit her head, turned around, and saw Trammel. They started fighting but then Trammel ran off. As M.T. gathered her personal items and resumed her walk home, Trammel returned in a car. He opened the car door, and “drug” her inside. She did not go willingly and told him to leave her alone.

LHG’s bylaws approved in 2009 contain an article entitled “Membership.” Section 1 of the article states: “Membership in the Guild shall be open to any individual, family or organization ascribing to the above Mission and having an interest in promoting its objectives.” Section 2 states: “Active members are those members who have paid their dues for the current year.” Section 3 affords active members “full voting privileges” at general membership meetings and eligibility to hold any office in LHG, whereas section 4 allows LHG to confer honorary memberships for “outstanding” contributions to LHG or its mission. Section 5 states: “Membership categories and dues shall be defined in the Standing Rules.” The bylaws provide that the “Standing Rules shall be just as binding as the Bylaws.”
LHG’s Standing Rules contain an article entitled “Active Members’ Dues and Honorary Membership.” S

On September 17, 2019, Walsh entered the victim’s home when nobody was present and took an iPhone, laptop, and several watches.
On December 13, 2019, the prosecution charged Walsh with first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)). The information alleged that the burglary was a serious and violent felony within the meaning of sections 1192.7, subdivision (c) and 667.5, subdivision (c). The information further alleged that Walsh had served nine prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had four prior strike convictions (§ 667, subd. (b)-(i)).
At the plea hearing on July 7, 2021, the trial court noted that the prosecutor had made Walsh an offer of 12 years in prison in exchange for pleas as to both counts and the admission of the prior strikes, with the understanding that Walsh would bring a Romero motion.

In 2006 the Merritts entered into an agreement to purchase a home in Sunnyvale for $729,000. The financing for the home purchase involved two loans secured with first and second deeds of trust. The Merritts made the monthly payments on both loans until 2008, when they could no longer make the payments and defaulted on the loans. In 2009, the Merritts attempted to rescind the loan agreements and Bank of America, the loan servicer, offered to modify the loan agreements. The Merritts thereafter signed loan modification agreements acknowledging that the agreements modified and supplemented the original notes and the deeds of trust. However, the Merritts did not make any further payments on the loans.
A. First State Court Action
In 2009 the Merritts filed their first state court action arising from the financing of their 2006 home purchase. (Merritt et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (Super. Ct. Santa Clara County, 2009, No. CV159993).)

On June 27, 2018, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office filed an information charging Taylor with torture (Pen. Code, § 206 ; count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), sodomy with an unconscious person (§ 286, subd. (f); count 3), three counts of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant, former spouse, or former cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a); counts 4, 6, and 7), two counts of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); counts 5 and 8), threats to commit a crime resulting death or great bodily injury (§ 422; count 9), and dissuading or attempting to dissuade a witness by use of force or threat of force (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1); count 10). As to counts 7 and 8, the District Attorney alleged that Taylor personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§§ 12022.7, subd. (e), 1203, subd. (e)(3)).
B. The Prosecution’s Case
1. The Charged Crimes

In the early morning hours of June 27, 2015, Marvin Jackson, Jr. and his younger half-brother, William Maynard, went to La Victoria Taqueria in downtown San Jose at the end of a night out. Accompanying the brothers were Jackson’s girlfriend and two friends, Jordan Hayes and Theodore Syddall. As the group left the restaurant around 2:12 a.m., Maynard got into an argument with someone on the restaurant’s front steps. Maynard was drunk. Another person joined in the argument. When the argument continued into an alleyway, the group arguing with Maynard grew to six or seven people. Jackson got involved and tried to break it up. “ ‘Crip’ ” and “ ‘Blood’ ” were mentioned more than once.
Someone from the other group lifted his shirt and flashed a gun at Maynard. The person with the gun said something like, “ ‘You don’t want these problems. Come around the corner,’ ” or, “ ‘Back up before you get blasted.’ ”

“On March 31, 2016, at about 8:00 a.m., Frahs entered a small market in Santa Ana. J. Kim, the store’s owner, refused to sell Frahs a beer; a week earlier Frahs had tried to steal a pack of cigarettes. Frahs went outside of the store and began picking up rocks and throwing them at cars that were passing by. Frahs then reentered the store and walked towards the cooler. Frahs grabbed a can of beer and a can of Red Bull. Kim and his son stood at the front door in order to block Frahs from leaving. Frahs rushed towards the door and tried to push his way through. During the ensuing confrontation, Kim was hit in the head and fell down.” (Frahs I, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 787.)

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Trial Court Proceedings
“Frahs testified in his own defense. Frahs said that in his early 20s he began hallucinating and experiencing delusions (he was 30 years old at the time of the trial).