CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Cynthia Kaye Cdebaca of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) for shooting her abusive son-in-law (G.E.) 15 times and killing him. The jury also found Cdebaca personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (a handgun) proximately causing G.E.'s death (§ 12022.53, subds. (a)(1), (d)). The court sentenced Cdebaca to a total term of 50 years to life based upon an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the first degree murder conviction plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the gun enhancement allegation.

Appointed counsel for defendant Rachel Janette Brock asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Noel Andrew Holland appeals following a no contest plea to drug possession for sale counts and contends the trial court erred in (1) denying his suppression motion, and (2) imposing penalty assessments on top of a criminal laboratory and drug program fee. We will affirm without prejudice to defendant raising his first contention by a habeas corpus petition.

Defendant Maurice Higgs appeals his convictions for multiple sex offenses committed against his stepdaughter. He raises instructional and sentencing error; we direct correction of the abstract of judgment and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Laterrial Desmones Jones of battery and criminal threats against his wife. The trial court sentenced him to seven years eight months in prison.
Defendant now contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for criminal threats. Specifically, he claims there is insufficient evidence of the element that the victim experienced sustained fear. He argues it is inherently improbable that she would have spent time with him later that day, and over the next week, if she were in fear. Finding no merit in his arguments, we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant John David Gann appealed from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. He claimed the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for resentencing, and we could reach claims of error not previously articulated in the trial court because trial counsel was ineffective in failing to argue—with respect to his statutory ineligibility—that the People needed to plead and prove that defendant “used or was armed with a deadly weapon,” that a jury finding of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt was required, and that his acquittal on the greater charge of assault with a deadly weapon in one case precluded a finding of ineligibility as to that conviction.

Defendant and appellant Michael Travis McInerney plead no contest to felony failure to register as a sex offender in violation of Penal Code section 290.012, subdivision (a). The trial granted probation and imposed a sentence of 312 days in county jail.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment after a guilty plea and checked the boxes on the appeal form indicating the appeal was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea, a challenge to the validity of the plea agreement, and “other” bases. We appointed counsel for defendant on appeal. On August 20, 2018, counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues but asking this court to independently review the record for error.

Father appeals from the juvenile court’s removal of his three-year-old son, J.C., from his custody. Father contends that substantial evidence does not support either the jurisdictional finding that he had a substance abuse problem that placed J.C. at risk, or the dispositional order removing him from father’s care. We find substantial evidence supports the court’s findings and affirm.

Defendant Fred Smith appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Defendant filed a supplemental letter brief upon notice from this court of the opportunity to do so. We have reviewed the record, conclude the record reveals no arguable issue on appeal, and thus affirm.

Plaintiff Max C. appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Plaintiff argues he qualified for regional center services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 4512, part of the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (§ 4500 et seq.) (Lanterman Act), as a person with a disabling condition found “to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability.” Plaintiff sought mandamus relief to challenge a decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) that he did not have a qualifying developmental disability and was ineligible for regional center services. The trial court denied plaintiff’s petition and affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision in favor of defendant Coastal Developmental Services Foundation, doing business as Westside Regional Center (Regional Center).

In prior litigation, several restaurant employees brought employment claims against the restaurant. The court granted the restaurant’s motion to compel arbitration and referred the matter to binding arbitration pursuant to the employment contract. In the arbitration, the employees added the restaurant owner as a respondent even though she was not a party to the contract. The arbitrator found against the employees and in favor of the restaurant and the owner. The owner subsequently filed this separate lawsuit, asserting claims of malicious prosecution and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the employees and their attorneys, based on being named as a respondent in the arbitration. The attorneys and employees moved to strike the owner’s complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)

Michael A. Mendivil, Sr., was placed on probation, after plea, for possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). Multiple petitions were filed to revoke probation based on his failure to comply with drug treatment conditions and commission of new criminal offenses. After hearing, the court imposed a previously suspended two-year prison sentence.
Assigned counsel submitted a Wende brief, certifying an inability to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also submitted a declaration confirming Mendivil was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wished to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) We agree no arguable issues are presented and affirm.

Appellant, Domeenic Harris, was convicted of furnishing a firearm to another for the purposes of aiding and abetting the commission of a felony offense and other related crimes. Harris argues the trial court committed structural federal constitutional error when it refused to allow argument from his counsel in closing remarks to the jury about the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt. He also argues the court’s self-defense instruction, CALCRIM No. 3474, was prejudicially erroneous because it suggested withdrawal alone could negate the right to use force, even if the attacker continued to pose a danger. We reject both arguments and thus affirm the judgment.

Defendant Salvador Villalobos appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of resisting an executive officer by force or violence (Former Pen. Code, § 69 - count one), using or being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550 - count three), and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364 - count four). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant three years’ probation. On appeal, defendant contends: there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for resisting arrest; and the trial court erred when it allowed police officers to testify as de facto experts on the use of force. He also requests that this court conduct an independent review of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion. We affirm the judgment.