CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant, was originally convicted of second degree murder and evading an officer with willful disregard for the safety of persons or property. (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a); Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a).) We affirmed defendants original convictions in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Villegas (Sept. 17, 2003, B163953) [nonpub. opn.].) However, on December 17, 2003, our Supreme Court granted defendants review petition. On June 8, 2005, our Supreme Court ordered us to reconsider the cause in light of its decision in People v. Howard (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1129, 1136-1139. In an unpublished opinion, we: reversed defendants second degree murder conviction; affirmed his conviction for felony evasion of a police officer; ordered defendants resentencing on the felony evading charge once the homicide issues were resolved; and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. (People v. Villegas (Aug. 29, 2005, B163953) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant was retried and convicted of second degree murder, vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, and leaving the scene of an accident. ( 187, subd. (a), 192, subd. (c)(1); Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a).) He appeals from his convictions after the retrial contending: his convictions violated his constitutional due process and double jeopardy rights; his convictions for vehicular manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident are barred by the statute of limitations; his convictions and sentences for manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident must be vacated pursuant to section 654, subdivision (a); and the trial court improperly imposed the upper term on his vehicular manslaughter conviction. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant challenges his attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and criminal threats convictions on several grounds, including instructional error and insufficiency of evidence. We conclude the trial courts jury instruction upon the concurrent intent theory omitted a crucial element of intent and requires reversal. Substantial evidence supports appellants second attempted murder conviction.

Plaintiffs appeal from the summary judgment entered for defendant Magellan Health Services, Inc., and several of its related entities in this action for the wrongful death of their adult daughter Janell. For the reasons set forth below, Court reverse the judgment.

Luis Miguel Salinas appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)). The jury also found to be true the firearm use allegations within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) through (d) and the allegation that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A). The trial court sentenced appellant to the upper term of nine years in prison for the attempted murder conviction, plus 10 years for the gang enhancement and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). Appellant contends that (1) the trial court prejudicially erred and deprived him of due process by instructing the jury that he could be guilty of attempted murder on an aiding and abetting theory, and (2) the sentence of 25 years to life authorized by section 12022.53 is unconstitutional as a cruel and unusual punishment. Court affirm.

Frederick Wilson, Jr., appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree murder with the following additional findings: the special circumstance that the murder was committed to further gang activities; that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death; and that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Defendants sentence included the term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant contends the trial court committed instructional errors and also erred in limiting defense counsels closing argument and by staying, rather than striking, certain enhancements. Court affirm.

Defendant, Anthony James Zamora, appeals from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378.) Defendant admitted that he was previously convicted of a serious felony. Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial court improperly imposed the upper term. The Attorney General argues the trial court failed to impose mandatory fines and penalty assessments and the trial court failed to impose or strike the prior prison term enhancement. Affirmed with modifications.

Jason Gleason appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant with a further finding that he had previously been convicted of spousal battery (Pen. Code, 273.5, subds. (a), (e)(2), 243, subd. (e)(1)), making criminal threats (id., 422), and false imprisonment (id., 236). (Further section references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant contends that his motion for a new trial was erroneously denied and he was improperly sentenced. Court vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Lance Michael Johnson appeals the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of two counts of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) The trial court sentenced Johnson to a prison term of four years. Court reject Johnsons various claims of error and affirm the judgment.

Arno Limon appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree murder committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang in which a principal intentionally discharged a handgun, causing death, and attempted premeditated murder committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang in which a principal intentionally discharged a handgun, causing great bodily injury. In a bifurcated court trial, defendant was found to have suffered prior felony convictions, including one under the Three Strikes law. He was sentenced to determinate and indeterminate terms totaling 117 years to life in state prison. Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts and that the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Court affirm.

This is a dental malpractice case in which the jury rendered its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and allocated fault among two defendants and a nonparty. The trial court thereafter granted the plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reallocated fault among just the defendants, one of whom appeals. Court affirm the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Ladeldrick Collins was convicted of one count of second degree murder and sentenced to state prison for a term of 15 years to life. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).) Collins appeals, claiming there were instructional and evidentiary errors. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Jose V., a minor, appeals from a disposition order providing that he remain a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1]be placed in the care, custody and control of the probation officer and remain in the home of his parents subject to conditions, including the condition that he spend 80 days in juvenile hall. This order followed the sustaining of a section 777 petition revoking probation previously granted after appellant admitted an allegation of possessing graffiti tools (Pen. Code, 594.1, subd. (e)(1)). The evidence adduced at the section 777 hearing was as follows:
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The order under review is affirmed.

Leslie Gluck was walking along a Santa Monica sidewalk when he caught his left foot on a brick and fell, injuring his hand. Gluck sued the City of Santa Monica for premises liability, alleging that the brick constituted a dangerous condition. The City answered, conducted discovery, then moved for summary judgment on the ground that the brick was a trivial defect, not a dangerous condition. Over Glucks opposition, the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the City. Gluck appeals. Court affirm.

Shortly after noon on March 20, 2005, sixteen year old gang member David Alejandro Galvez (defendant) took a .22 caliber semi automatic rifle, drove with two accomplices into the territory of a rival gang on what the trial court characterized as a hunting trip, and murdered two young men. A jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) with a multiple murder special circumstance ( 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury also found true the allegations that defendant personally used a firearm causing great bodily injury or death ( 12022.53, subd. (d)), and that the murders were committed for the benefit of a street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The trial court sentenced defendant to two terms of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), plus two terms of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The trial court struck the gang enhancement. Court affirm the judgment.