CA Unpub Decisions

Following a jury trial, defendant Matthew Gray Evans was convicted of petty theft as a lesser included offense of robbery (Pen. Code, § 488) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve a four-year state prison term.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court’s decision to admit, if he testified, a video of his behavior in the patrol car without also redacting racial slurs violated his rights to testify, present evidence, present a defense, and due process, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in not asking for a continuance after the late disclosure of the video, and (3) the trial court deprived him of his right to present a defense by prohibiting defense counsel from raising arguments about brandishing during closing argument. Finally, he asserts cumulative error warrants reversal. We conclude the trial court’s decision to conditionally admit the video even without redaction was within its discretion, defen

Defendant Anthony Nabor Orosco shot his girlfriend in the face with a .22-caliber revolver while the two were involved in a physical altercation on defendant’s bed. The bullet’s path of travel transected major blood vessels in the base of her skull, causing massive blood loss and resulting in her drowning in her own blood. Defendant was convicted by jury of second degree murder and possession of a short-barreled rifle found in his bedroom after the murder. With respect to the murder count, the jury found an allegation defendant personally used a firearm to be true, but found an allegation he personally and intentionally discharged that firearm to be not true. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in state prison consecutive to an aggregate determinate term of 13 years.

In May 2017, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant Norman Maiden, Jr. (defendant) in a single-count information with a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11370.1(a), possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm. The charges were predicated on evidence that, on August 7, 2016, police pulled defendant over while driving a tow truck and subsequently recovered cocaine after a search of defendant’s person, as well as marijuana and a firearm after a search of the truck.
Defense counsel moved to suppress the cocaine and the gun on the grounds that the detention was unduly prolonged and there was no probable cause for the search of the vehicle. The trial court denied the motion, finding: the detention was not unduly prolonged under Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 135 S.Ct. 1609, the cocaine was recovered pursuant to a search incident to arrest, and the officer had probable cause to search the interior of the tow truck.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that appellant A.S. committed the felony offense of battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)). The petition included a determination of appellant’s eligibility for deferred entry of judgment. Appellant denied the allegations in the petition.

James Daniel Elliott appeals an order denying a petition to recall sentence and resentence his 2014 felony conviction pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a).) We affirm. (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 876 (Valenzuela).)

In 1997, defendant David Denetrix Bowers entered a bank and tried to cash a fraudulent check. He was charged with and convicted of check forgery and possession of a check with intent to defraud, and sentenced to a third-strike term of 25 years to life. After the electorate passed the Three Strikes Reform Act in 2012 (Proposition 36), defendant petitioned for recall of sentence and resentencing. The prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that defendant was ineligible for relief based on a 1990 kidnapping conviction that qualified as a sexually violent felony under Proposition 36. The trial court agreed and found defendant ineligible by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the prosecution was required to prove defendant’s ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse.

Plaintiff Indigo Group USA (plaintiff) sued defendants Truman Park (Park) and Majesty & Royalty, Inc. (Majesty) (collectively, defendants), alleging they purchased approximately 14,000 pairs of jeans and failed to pay the contract price. Defendants contended they took possession of the jeans pursuant to a consignment agreement and owed plaintiff nothing. After hearing evidence at a bench trial, the trial court agreed with defendants’ characterization of the transaction but found defendants were unjustly enriched by their continued possession of the jeans. The court ordered defendant to return the unsold jeans to plaintiff, but plaintiff asserts it was entitled to monetary restitution instead. We consider whether such a restitution remedy was required because plaintiff preferred that remedy or because there was evidence the jeans’ aggregate value had declined after defendants sold some but not all of the inventory.

Appellant Hall Lycurgus Johnson appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 1 – human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c)(1)), two counts of lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 2 & 3), count 4 – kidnapping for child molestation (§ 207, subd. (b)), and two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); counts 5 & 6). We affirm, except we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

Defendant Jonathan Elbye appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of damaging a prison or jail, with damage in excess of $950. (Pen. Code, § 4600, subd. (a).) We affirm.

Plaintiffs and appellants Dr. Cong Vo and Dr. Suha Newhide are neonatologists and former members of defendant and respondent Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center’s (the Hospital’s) medical staff. The Hospital’s Medical Staff Executive Committee (Medical Committee) determined Dr. Vo and Dr. Newhide’s hospital privileges should be terminated for violations of certain rules and care standards. Drs. Vo and Newhide contested that determination by requesting a hearing before the Hospital’s Judicial Review Committee (Review Committee). The Review Committee issued a report and recommendation that found Dr. Vo and Dr. Newhide committed some (not all) of the identified violations but concluded the violations did not warrant termination. Neither the doctors nor the Medical Committee administratively appealed this decision, but pursuant to Hospital bylaws, the matter went to the Hospital’s Board of Directors (Board) for its review. The Board rejected the Review Committee’s reco

Defendant Joseph Pierre Raouf was charged with numerous crimes stemming from two robberies. Following a bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of nine counts, including one count of making criminal threats and two counts of resisting an executive officer. The court also found true several firearm and prior conviction allegations and sentenced defendant to 27 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the court erred in admitting statements he made to investigating officers during a post-arrest interview conducted at the hospital and which form the basis for his criminal threats conviction; (2) insufficient evidence supports his conviction for criminal threats; and (3) insufficient evidence supports one of his convictions for resisting an executive officer. We affirm.

Defendant Armando Morales-Cuevas was accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter (stepdaughter) beginning when she was nine years old. Stepdaughter repeatedly retracted and renewed her allegations, but Morales-Cuevas confessed to some of the allegations during a police interview. A jury convicted him of four counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years of age, and he was sentenced to 116 years to life in prison.
On appeal, Morales-Cuevas advances seven primary claims. These are that (1) the trial court should have suppressed his statements to the police, because he did not validly waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) before being interrogated and his confession was coerced; (2) portions of CALJIC No. 10.42.6, the jury instruction given on the count of continuous sexual abuse, are legally incorrect; (3) expert testimony about Child Sexual Abuse

Appellant Jason I. Sandefur was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 16 years after a jury convicted him of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of resisting arrest, the court found true recidivist allegations, and appellant pled guilty to a single count of soliciting the murder of one of the victims in the original case. Appellant contends the judgment must be reversed because the court should have granted his request for self-representation and should have stricken both of his two prior convictions under the “Three Strikes” law, rather than the one it actually struck. He also contends the trial court erred in setting direct victim restitution. We affirm.

Seneca Insurance Company (appellant) appeals from an order of the trial court granting summary judgment on a forfeiture of bail in favor of San Mateo County. Summary judgment was entered while a motion to toll the appearance period pending extradition of the defendant, pursuant to Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (h) (section 1305(h)), was pending. Appellant contends that because the motion was timely and still pending, the trial court entered summary judgment prematurely. Appellant further contends the judgment is voidable and bail should be exonerated. We agree and reverse the order granting summary judgment with an order remanding the matter to the trial court for entry of an order exonerating the bail.