CA Unpub Decisions

In May 2016, the Amador County Department of Social Services removed H.K. (age two), Jy.H. (age 15 months), and newborn Jz.H. from their parents’ care and filed section 300 petitions alleging the minors were at risk because both mother and Jz.H. tested positive for drugs at Jz.H.’s birth, both parents admitted drug use, and this drug use resulted in their inability to care for and supervise the minors as seen through the unsafe condition of the home and lax supervision. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The minors were officially detained on May 16, 2016, and the matter was set for a contested jurisdictional hearing. Ultimately, the parents submitted to jurisdiction after certain amendments to the section 300 petitions not relevant to this appeal, and the matter was set for a dispositional hearing.

Samuel Wilson was murdered during the attempted commission of a robbery set up by Willie Scoggins. Wilson had previously sold Scoggins three boxes purportedly containing 50-inch flat-screen televisions. The boxes actually contained plywood wrapped in bubble wrap. A few days later, Wilson encountered Scoggins’s girlfriend, Shaneil Cooks, and her friend, Jennifer Kane, in a parking lot and offered Cooks the same deal. Cooks informed Scoggins via text message that she found the man who had hustled him. A short time later, Cooks and Kane lured Wilson to a different parking lot under the guise of making a purchase. When Wilson arrived, in addition to Cooks and Kane, he found two of Scoggins’s friends, James Howard and Randall Powell. Scoggins was also nearby, in an adjacent parking lot. The plan, devised by Scoggins, was for Howard and Powell to rob and “beat the shit out of” Wilson. When Wilson ran, Powell shot and killed him.

Following a jury trial, defendant Tracey Renee Walker was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) and was found to have personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim during the commission of the offense. Defendant was sentenced to six years in state prison. On appeal, she contends the mutual combat jury instruction given was not supported by the evidence, the trial court failed to address the jury’s request for clarification on the mutual combat instruction, the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by misrepresenting the evidence and misstating the law during closing arguments, and the accumulation of these errors amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

A jury found defendant John Sanford guilty of second degree robbery, criminal threats, first degree burglary, domestic violence, witness intimidation by force or violence, and two counts of firearm possession by a prohibited person. The jury acquitted defendant on one count of firearm possession. The jury also found two firearm allegations to be true.

As relevant to this appeal, defendants Filip Ciurar and Sabino Nino were convicted of two counts of robbery. Nino was also convicted of two counts of making criminal threats, and Ciurar was convicted of harboring a felon. The jury found the firearm allegations attached to defendants’ robbery charges not true. On appeal, Nino contends the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion and sufficient evidence does not support one of his robbery convictions. Ciurar also contends sufficient evidence does not support the same robbery conviction. We affirm.

Following his plea of no contest to carjacking committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang in which he personally used a firearm, defendant Antonio Lagunas was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 years. Several years later, in response to a request for clarification of defendant’s sentence from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department), the court corrected defendant’s original sentence and imposed an aggregate prison term of 24 years. Defendant appeals from the judgment imposing a lower aggregate sentence. After appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant submitted a supplemental brief raising a purported sentencing error. We have reviewed the entire record and defendant’s supplemental brief and have found no arguable appellate issues. As our review of the record revealed errors in the sentencing minute order and abstract of ju

Richard Joseph Sams appeals a May 23, 2018 order denying his petition to be resentenced. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d).) In October 2016, appellant pled no contest in four cases (case nos. 16F-00589, 16F-00752, 16F-02923, 16F-04461) to multiple counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)) and identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), and admitted an out-on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1) and two prison prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant was to receive an eight-year-four-month county jail/prison sentence, consisting of five years four months custody time and three years mandatory supervision.
Appellant was released on a Cruz waiver (People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247) to attend his father’s funeral. Appellant failed to appear for sentencing and drove a U-Haul to Nevada where he was arrested, convicted, and served time on a new offense.

Minor Jorge C. appeals from an order placing him on probation following his admission of one count of felony robbery. His appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to independently examine the record to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Counsel declares that she wrote to Jorge at his last known address, informing him she was filing a Wende brief on his behalf and apprising him of his right to file a supplemental brief. He has not done so. We have conducted our examination, conclude there are no arguable issues requiring briefing, and affirm.

Defendant Isidro Ariza appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of committing two lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. Defendant contends the court abused its discretion by completely disregarding one of the facts in favor of granting him probation that are stated in California Rules of Court, rule 4.414 and denying him probation. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant Carl Ray Brown Jr. was ordered to pay $6,970.40 in restitution for relocation expenses, $6,820.40 payable to the Victim Compensation Board and $150 payable directly to the victim, his former wife. He challenges the restitution for relocation expenses on several grounds. He first claims the law enforcement verification form submitted to establish that the relocation expenses were “necessary for the personal safety of the victim” is too cursory to satisfy the statutory verification requirement. He next claims the evidence does not support a finding that relocation was necessary for the safety of the victim. He additionally claims the restitution cannot be upheld on the alternative ground relocation was necessary for the “emotional well-being of the victim” given the absence of statutorily required verification by a mental health treatment provider. (Ibid.) Although it is a close call whether the law enforcement verification is adequate, we affirm.

Diego R. appeals from an order placing him on formal probation with various conditions, including the condition that he not be on the campus or grounds of any school unless enrolled, accompanied by a parent or guardian, or with prior permission of school authorities. In his opening brief in this appeal, appellant’s sole contention was that this probation condition must be stricken as unreasonable and unconstitutionally overbroad. In its respondent’s brief, respondent disagreed. In lieu of a reply brief, appellant’s attorney filed and served a letter dated August 8, 2018, advising as follows: “Appellant would like to inform the Court that he is no longer on formal probation. He is thus no longer subject to the probation conditions at issue in this case.”

Plaintiff David J. Scholl, owner of Dixon’s Independent Voice, a newspaper of general circulation, appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendants City of Dixon and various present and former city officials, including Suellen Johnston, Jim Lindley, Jack Batchelor, Steven Bird, Jerry Castanon, Sr., and Scott Pederson (collectively the city). He contends the court erred in sustaining without leave to amend the city’s demurrer to his second amended complaint and petition for writ of mandate, which sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on claims arising out of the means by which the city effectively denied his newspaper a contract for the publication of legal notices. We conclude that the demurrer was properly sustained to some of his causes of action but that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to causes of action for violations of Scholl’s First Amendment rights and of section 20169 of the Public Contract Code.

In these consolidated appeals following their convictions for murder, defendants Giovonte Douglas and Cartier Hunter contend they received ineffective assistance of counsel, the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments, and we should order a limited remand to allow them to present evidence relevant to a future youth offender parole hearing. Douglas also challenges the admission of certain evidence and Hunter raises additional sentencing issues. In both appeals, we order a limited remand on sentencing issues and direct the trial court to correct errors in the abstract of judgment; in Hunter’s appeal, we also modify the judgment to strike an enhancement. We otherwise affirm.

Defendant Robert Rusconi was allegedly injured in an automobile accident. He sued the owner and the driver of the other vehicle. The insurance company for the owner of the vehicle offered to settle Rusconi’s claim for $30,000, which was the policy limit for bodily injury liability. Plaintiff IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company (IDS), which was the separate insurer for the driver, refused Rusconi’s offer to settle for its policy limit of $100,000 for bodily injury liability and instead offered to settle the claim for $70,000, which was the amount of the IDS policy limit minus the policy limit of the other insurance.