CA Unpub Decisions

Hogan Ishmael Simuel petitioned to recall his current felony sentence for receiving stolen property and for resentencing as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.18). The trial court denied the petition, finding Simuel’s conviction did not qualify for resentencing. We affirm.

Joshua B. appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings declaring his children, M.B. and A.B., dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and from the court’s disposition order. The court found that Joshua and the children’s mother, R.R., who is not a party to this appeal, had a history of domestic violence placing the children at risk of serious physical harm and that placing the children with Joshua would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the children. The court also made jurisdiction findings based solely on R.R.’s conduct under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j).

K.R. (Mother) and Thomas P. (Father) appeal from a jurisdiction/disposition order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), declaring their two-year-old daughter, Avery P., to be a dependent child of the court and removing her from their custody. They contend there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order. We reverse.

Premiere Medical Center of Burbank, Inc. and its principal Dr. Michael D. Marsh (collectively Premiere) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Premiere’s landlord NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I, LLC (NHP) following a court trial in NHP’s unlawful detainer action. Premiere contends the court’s finding it remained in possession of a medical suite it had surrendered to NHP prior to NHP’s filing of the unlawful detainer action was based on a legally incorrect theory of “constructive possession” and, in any event, was not supported by substantial evidence. Because Premiere was not in possession of the surrendered suite, it argues, NHP’s notices to quit or pay rent, which identified rent due for that suite, were incorrect, creating a fatal defect in NHP’s unlawful detainer action. Premiere also appeals from the order denying its motion to vacate the judgment for intrinsic fraud, claiming a NHP principal had testified falsely at trial. We reverse.

Eric Cook pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder and one count of voluntary manslaughter and admitted certain sentencing enhancements. In accordance with his plea agreement, Cook was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 27 years four months. On appeal Cook argues the court erred by failing to apply the one-third limit for a consecutive subordinate term to the sentence imposed for a firearm enhancement. Cook also requests this court correct errors that appear in the minutes of the July 28, 2017 sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment. We agree that errors in the minute order and abstract of judgment must be corrected. However, because Cook pleaded no contest and failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, the remainder of his appeal must be dismissed as inoperative.

Craig Allen Scott committed two burglaries, one on April 28, 2016 and one on July 28, 2016, of his former employer’s business. A jury convicted him of second degree burglary and vandalism for the first incident and second degree burglary and driving and taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent for the second incident. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences on all four convictions. Scott argues the court should have stayed under Penal Code section 654 his sentences for vandalism and driving and taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent. We agree and remand with directions to stay execution of the sentences on those convictions.

Isaac Flores appeals from a judgment of conviction following his no contest plea to possession for sale of cocaine in excess of 10 kilograms, possession of an assault weapon, and child abuse. He challenges the denial of his motions to unseal the search warrant affidavit, quash and traverse the search warrant, and suppress the evidence obtained during the search. Flores requests we independently review the sealed portion of the search warrant affidavit pursuant to People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 971 (Hobbs) to determine whether the affidavit was properly sealed and whether, in light of the affidavit and the testimony at the suppression hearing, the initial warrantless search was lawful. He urges us as part of our review to excise the fruits of the warrantless entry, and determine whether the remaining information in the search warrant affidavit provides probable cause for issuance of the search warrant.

Chaka Grossman appeals from a conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to a charge of possession of a controlled substance with a firearm. Grossman contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence obtained from a search of his house, pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. Grossman argues that once information gathered during the unlawful protective sweep was properly excised from the search warrant affidavit, there was no probable cause to support a search of his residence. He also contends the trial court should have excised statements he made during his unlawful detention, and the sole remaining support for the search warrant—the presence of a stolen vehicle in his driveway—did not establish probable cause to search his house.

Concepcion Mejia sued the City of San Fernando (the City), alleging she sustained injuries after tripping and falling on an elevated section of sidewalk. The trial court granted summary judgment in the City’s favor after determining the deviation in the sidewalk was trivial as a matter of law. Mejia appealed, and we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Phillip Lester Vargas of voluntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense of murder, and found true a specially alleged weapon enhancement. On appeal Vargas contends the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter, denying his mid-trial request for a short continuance and excluding expert testimony and other evidence. We affirm.

Steven Lawrence Wright and Hildon James Jones, III, appeal from judgments of conviction. They were charged together in a two-count information. In count 1 Wright alone was charged with murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) In count 2 Wright and Jones were jointly charged with willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree attempted murder. (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a).) Each count was separately tried before separate juries.

Victor Bee and Jonathan Woods were convicted by a jury of kidnapping and sentenced to 21 years and 22 years in state prison, respectively. On appeal Bee and Woods principally contend the court failed to instruct on the lesser included offense of false imprisonment and omitted a critical element of the kidnapping offense from the written jury instructions. In addition, Bee contends his counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to move to sever his trial or obtain a separate jury, while Woods contends the court erred in denying his counsel’s requests for a continuance to review late-produced discovery and to give a jury instruction as a discovery sanction. Bee and Woods also argue their respective counsel provided ineffective assistance at the sentencing hearing. We remand to allow the trial court to consider whether to exercise its discretion under a new law, effective January 1, 2019, to strike or dismiss a prior serious felony conviction for sentencing purposes. In al

A jury convicted Edward F. Osorio of the first degree murder of Matthew Martin and possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury also found true gang allegations as to both counts and firearm use allegations as to the murder count. After Osorio admitted prior convictions including a serious or violent felony conviction, the trial court sentenced him to state prison for a term of 80 years to life.

Plaintiff Simon D. Castillo appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Santa Fe Healthcare, LLC, doing business as Villa Maria Elena Care Center (Villa Maria) and JPH Management, Inc. (JPH) (collectively, defendants) on Castillo’s elder abuse and negligence claims. Those claims are based upon defendants’ care of Castillo’s mother, Eladia Daza Castillo (Decedent), while she was a resident of Villa Maria, a skilled nursing facility.