CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Daniel Jason Thomas appeals his convictions for possession of a dirk or dagger, possession of methamphetamine with prior convictions, and possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, he contends it was error to deny his motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5 as the detention and patsearch were not justified by reasonable suspicion. We agree and reverse the judgment.

Defendant Rebecca Lee Mendoza challenges her conviction of second degree murder of her husband Michael Bradford, with personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing death. On appeal, defendant argues her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to present expert testimony and request jury instruction on “intimate partner battering [(IPB)] and its effects.” IPB and its effects was previously known as Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS). (In re Walker (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 533, 536, fn. 1 (Walker).) We reject defendant’s contentions, because defendant’s trial counsel expressly stated on the record that he decided not to present an expert “as a matter of trial strategy,” and defendant fails to show that there could be no conceivable explanation for this tactical decision or that counsel failed her regarding jury instructions.

Defendant Davon Louis DeHughes was convicted by jury of possession of three controlled substances for sale, i.e., heroin, hydrocodone, and methamphetamine (Counts 1-3), possession of concentrated cannabis (Count 6), possession of marijuana for sale (Count 7), possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Count 4), and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon (Counts 5 and 8). With respect to the first three counts, the jury also found defendant was personally armed with a firearm. In a bifurcated hearing, defendant admitted he was previously convicted of a strike offense within the meaning of the three strikes law, he served four prior prison terms, and he had two prior narcotics convictions. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate determinate prison term of 30 years 8 months.

This appeal arises from the “Great Dissolution” legislation freezing operations of community redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and then dissolving them and winding-up their affairs. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 34161-34169.5 [Part 1.8 freeze component], and Health & Saf. Code, §§ 34170-34191.6 [Part 1.85 dissolution component]; statutory section references that follow are found in the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise set forth.)

Plaintiffs Debra Gray and numerous other former tenants of an apartment building successfully sued the owner for multiple serious habitability violations. They did so as part of a settlement with the owner, which included an assignment of the building owner’s claim for bad faith and breach of contract against the owner’s insurer—American Safety Indemnity Co. (ASIC)—after ASIC refused to defend and cover those claims. The trial court sustained without leave to amend ASIC’s demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the building owner’s assignment of claims to plaintiffs included a release so broad that it encompassed the plaintiffs’ bad faith claims. We affirm the judgment for ASIC on an alternative ground—the building owner’s failure to comply with a condition precedent to coverage under the ASIC policy.

Francisco C. is the father of Samantha C., Anthony C., and Jimena C. The juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court based on Francisco’s excessive physical abuse of Jimena, removed the children from Francisco’s care and custody, ordered them to remain with their mother Maria C., signed custody orders granting mother sole legal and sole physical custody, with monitored visits for Francisco, and terminated juvenile court jurisdiction over the children. Francisco appeals these findings and orders.

Defendant Marlin John Gustafson was convicted of two counts arising from a single assault. He contends the trial court erroneously failed to stay count 2 pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Finding the court’s minutes and abstract of judgment do not reflect the court’s actual judgment, we affirm, and order the court to correct its minutes and abstract of judgment.

On September 21, 2017, appellant was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) It was also alleged that appellant used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and acted for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(c)).
A jury found appellant guilty of first-degree murder, and found true the deadly weapon and gang enhancement allegations. The court sentenced appellant to a term of 25 years to life with the possibility of parole, and an additional one-year term for the deadly weapon enhancement, for a total term of 26 years to life.
Appellant timely appealed. He contends that in rebuttal argument, the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the law regarding imperfect self-defense. We affirm.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joshua D. Wayser, Judge. Dismissed in part and conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions in part. Ashley F. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition orders removing her son M.B. and her daughter S. T. from her custody. Her sole contention is that the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) and California’s parallel statutory scheme. As to S.T., we agree that the Department failed to comply with ICWA’s inquiry and notice requirements, remand the matter to allow the Department and the juvenile court to remedy that violation of federal and state law, and otherwise conditionally affirm the order. As to M.B., we dismiss because mother has abandoned the appeal as to her son.

Kylelan Michael Desvignes appeals from judgments of conviction by plea in two cases after the trial court denied his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm.

Armando Romeo Cordova was convicted of two counts of attempted murder he committed at age 15. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 74 years and eight months to life in state prison. On appeal, Cordova contends Senate Bill 1391, which repeals the People’s authority to prosecute 14- and 15-year-old minors as adults under most circumstances, applies retroactively to his case. We agree and remand the matter to juvenile court for further proceedings under California’s juvenile court law.

Defendant convinced his victim, a recovering methamphetamine addict, to come stay with him, by offering her drugs. Once he had her in his apartment, defendant embarked on a course of conduct that included repeated rapes and forced oral copulation, and once invited three other men to rape her, which they did. He kept her compliant by brutally beating her, and giving her methamphetamine, even when she wanted to stop taking it. After she had been captive for two months, Defendant used his victim’s mobile phone to call her mother, telling the woman she would never see her daughter again. The victim’s mother hired an investigator, who tracked defendant from his phone calls. The police discovered the victim, weak and badly injured, in defendant’s apartment. Defendant was convicted of torture, rape, rape in concert, and forcible oral copulation, with multiple circumstances justifying increased sentencing found to be true. Defendant appeals.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Nahendra Travon Hughes (defendant) of two counts of resisting an executive officer in violation of Penal Code section 69. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for new trial. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial because the officers illegally entered his home and detained him without a warrant. Defendant also asks us to conduct an independent review of the sealed portion of the record to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion and erroneously withheld discoverable information from the defense. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Vincent Tyrone Fowler of assaulting, criminally threatening, and twice raping Jane Doe, a 15-year-old close family friend. The trial court found true various prior conviction allegations and sentenced defendant to 61 years 8 months in prison. Defendant seeks reversal, arguing the trial court committed prejudicial evidentiary error and erred in denying his mistrial and new trial motions, which were premised on a claim of incurably prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no error, we affirm.