CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Robert Julio Arnaud appeals the judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of the attempted and premeditated first-degree murder of Antonio Lizarraga. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a).) The jury also found true the allegations that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), and that Arnaud personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury to the victim (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)).
Arnaud contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to adequately address his request to replace appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). Arnaud also contends he is entitled to remand so the trial court can exercise its newly enacted discretion to strike the firearm-use enhancements pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2). In his rehearing petition, which we granted, Arnaud further contends that Senate Bill No.

Deborah Vaillancourt obtained a three-year civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6 (section 527.6)) against Thomas Edison. Edison appeals, and we reverse.

Aaron Harder Rudd appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1), first degree burglary (§ 459; count 2), possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a); counts 3 & 4), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts 5 & 6), and false imprisonment (§ 236; count 7). The jury also found true the personal firearm use allegations as to counts 1 and 2. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) Thereafter, appellant admitted the prior conviction and prior prison term allegations. (§§ 667, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12.) The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 25 years 8 months.
Appellant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying a pretrial defense motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. Because we conclude appellant forfeited this claim, we affirm the judgment of conviction. However, we remand the matter to the tria

A jury convicted defendants Boston Blade of second-degree murder and Marquis Wilson of first-degree murder, stemming from the shooting of a rival gang member. The jury also convicted both defendants of committing an armed robbery of a liquor store two days later. On appeal, both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their murder convictions. We find sufficient evidence to support Marquis’s conviction for first-degree murder. On the other hand, we conclude there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict on the murder count as to Boston. We therefore reverse Boston’s murder conviction.

Sean Thompson appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of his former employer People Coordinated Services of Southern California, Inc. (PCS), its president Virgie P. Walker, and its employee Robert Aguirre (collectively, respondents).
On appeal, Thompson contends the trial court erred (1) in sustaining the demurrer to Thompson’s disability discrimination, disability harassment, and fraud causes of action without leave to amend and (2) abused its discretion in excluding certain evidence at trial. We agree the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for disability discrimination, but find no prejudice to Thompson. We also conclude Thompson suffered no prejudice from the trial court’s exclusion of certain evidence at trial. We thus affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs Manuel Cabello and Dana Cabello (when referred to collectively, appellants) appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to their second amended complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.

Plaintiffs Michael Scott Frazer, Alan Miller, William Chan, Michelle Chan, Jeff Chang, Tomas Velken and Julie Lam (together, plaintiffs) move to dismiss defendant Simon Chan’s (defendant) appeal on the grounds that: (1) the appeal is “void” because defendant filed his notice of appeal in violation of a bankruptcy court stay that was in effect at the time; and (2) defendant lacks standing to pursue the appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we shall dismiss the appeal.

After D.B. (Minor) admitted violating the terms of his previously-imposed probation, the juvenile court ordered gang-related probation conditions that Minor now challenges. Even though Minor admitted being affiliated with a gang, and even though the probation department expressed concerns that he failed to appreciate the effects of his association with peers engaging in criminal behavior, Minor argues that the gang-related conditions are unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). We shall affirm.

Pursuant to this court’s order on the prior appeal in this matter (No. A148697), the trial court conducted an in camera review of Sergeant Johnson’s personnel records pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. The trial court determined that the file contained nothing required to be disclosed and, therefore, pursuant to this court’s order in No. A148697, reinstated the judgment after dismissing the conviction for attempted criminal threats in count 4. On appeal from the reinstated judgment, defendant has requested this court to review the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing. Having done so, we find that the trial court properly swore in the custodian of Sergeant Johnson’s records and did not abuse its discretion in determining there were no records improperly withheld. Therefore, the reinstated judgment is affirmed.

Edward Blakeley (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of attempted first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664) and the trial court sentenced him to three years in prison—two years for the attempted burglary and one year for a prior prison term enhancement. Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by: (1) eliciting evidence of the victim’s fear, in violation of an in limine order; (2) stating during closing argument that a metal bar is a typical burglary tool; and (3) misstating the evidence during closing argument. Defendant also claims that to the extent his claims were forfeited, he was provided with ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

A jury found appellant Gregory Martin Nelson guilty of resisting arrest but acquitted him on charges of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and inflicting injury on a former cohabitant. The trial court granted a two-year term of probation with 10 days in county jail.
Nelson raises two claims on appeal. First, he contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for resisting arrest because the police were not engaged in the lawful performance of their duties at the time of the arrest. Second, he contends the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on resisting arrest. Because his trial counsel did not object or request pinpoint instructions, Nelson contends counsel provided ineffective assistance. We conclude Nelson’s claims are without merit.

In this action for unfair competition, the trial court determined that plaintiff Holly Moose had failed to prove unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) in her action against defendant U.S. Legal Support, Inc. (U.S. Legal), a foreign corporation doing business in California using certified shorthand reporters as independent contractors. The trial court first ruled that U.S. Legal was not required to comply with the Moscone-Knox Professional Corporation Act (Moscone-Knox Act or the Act) because it was not itself practicing shorthand reporting. The court further found that plaintiff had failed to show economic injury. Although we find error in the court’s reasoning on both elements of plaintiff’s cause of action, we nonetheless uphold its ultimate conclusion that plaintiff was unable to support her claim of economic injury caused by U.S. Legal’s conduct in this state. Accordingly, we must affirm the judgment.

Salvador Garcia seeks relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The petition is granted.
Following a jury trial Garcia was sentenced to 40 years to life. In his declaration trial counsel states that after discussing issues that would be preserved for appeal, counsel advised petitioner that he would file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Counsel’s declaration states that although he prepared the notice of appeal, it was inadvertently never filed.

This is the third opinion we have issued in this case. In 1998, in case No. G020521, we affirmed defendant Scott Anthony Smith’s 1996 judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale and the transportation of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11378 and 11379. Because defendant had suffered five prior burglary convictions, he was sentenced to 25 years to life under the “Three Strikes” law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12; all further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)
In 2015, in case No. G048790, we affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition under section 1170.126 (Proposition 36) to have his original sentence recalled and to be resentenced as a second strike offender. The court denied the petition after determining defendant was not entitled to relief because he had committed violent acts while incarcerated and thus presented a danger to the public.