CA Unpub Decisions

In this cold-case murder prosecution, a jury convicted defendant Leonard Terrance Woods of the murder of Judy G. committed some 24 years earlier. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12202, subd. (b)(1).) He appeals, contending his conviction was tainted by multiple instances of governmental misconduct. As we shall explain, we find certain of those actions amounted to no misconduct at all. But some unquestionably did. Even so, the remedies Woods seeks—chief among them, dismissal—remain unwarranted because on this record, insufficient prejudice appears. Since Woods received the fair trial to which he was entitled, we affirm.

In this cold-case murder prosecution, a jury convicted defendant Leonard Terrance Woods of the murder of Judy G. committed some 24 years earlier. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12202, subd. (b)(1).) He appeals, contending his conviction was tainted by multiple instances of governmental misconduct. As we shall explain, we find certain of those actions amounted to no misconduct at all. But some unquestionably did. Even so, the remedies Woods seeks—chief among them, dismissal—remain unwarranted because on this record, insufficient prejudice appears. Since Woods received the fair trial to which he was entitled, we affirm.

An information charged defendant Francisco Manuel Andrade with inflicting child abuse (Penal Code, § 273 subd. (a), count 1); making criminal threats (§ 422 subd. (a), count 2); and assault with a deadly weapon on a spouse and child (§ 245 subd. (a)(1), count 3). The offenses arose after an incident on October 5, 2017, when defendant grabbed a large kitchen knife and threatened to kill his partner J.B., their nine-year-old daughter E.B., and himself. Law enforcement arrested defendant the following day.

After transfer to this court from the California Supreme Court with directions to vacate our earlier decision and to reconsider this case in light of People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100 (Ruiz), we vacate our earlier decision and find that the criminal laboratory analysis fee of $50 per offense and the drug program fee of $150 per offense are fines that are punishment for Ramos's felony conviction, and thus are subject to penalty assessments. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

A jury found defendant Christopher M. Franklin guilty of first degree murder of Anna (count one), the attempted murder of Dennis (count three), an assault on Douglas by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count five), and three counts of carrying a concealed firearm on his person during the commission of each of these three offenses (counts two, four, and six—Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(2).) The jury also found true that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury or death in the commission of counts one and three. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).)

This is the second appeal involving the same family. In the first appeal, we reversed the juvenile court’s disposition orders after the court excluded Y.Q., Kayla W.’s mother (mother), from the child’s disposition hearing because mother had placed the child in a voluntary legal guardianship with the child’s grandparents before the dependency proceedings were initiated. (See In re Kayla W. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 409 (Kayla I).) We remanded the matter for the court to conduct a new disposition hearing at which mother could appear with appointed counsel.

After unsuccessfully challenging the search warrant used to obtain evidence against him, Alexander Hernandez entered a plea of no contest to one count of possession of methadone for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.) The trial court sentenced appellant to four years in state prison. Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to quash and traverse the search warrant and to suppress evidence from the search. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m).)

K.C. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order concerning her then-ten-year-old twin daughters, J.C. and C.C. The juvenile court credited J.C.’s reports of sexual abuse to a social worker and others—notwithstanding her later insistence that she lied about the abuse—and asserted dependency jurisdiction over both girls. The juvenile court removed the children from Mother’s custody and placed them in the home of their father, E.L. (Father). We consider whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determinations, which hinge on the court’s decision about which of J.C’s statements to believe.

At a trial on attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon charges, the crime victim and an eyewitness both testified they saw defendant and appellant Mark Raymond Frisby (defendant) strike the victim with a hammer. Defendant testified he did not attack the victim or see who did. When cross-examining defendant, the prosecution asked if he had ever told anybody the version of events he recounted during his trial testimony. We consider whether the prosecution’s question constitutes reversible error under Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610 (Doyle), which prohibits using a defendant’s reliance on his or her constitutional right to remain silent as evidence of guilt.

This is the second time this case is before us. In this appeal, Janey Tang Ho (appellant) appeals from an order of the superior court granting the petition of Marlene Dennis (respondent), the conservator of appellant’s mother’s estate, for a substituted judgment to create an estate plan. In the first appeal, we reversed the superior court’s order requiring appellant to transfer certain real property to the conservator and to return $650,000 to the estate. We remanded the matter for the court to reconsider whether the property should be transferred and to recalculate the amount appellant must repay the estate. In the proceeding at issue in the present appeal, the petition for substituted judgment was based largely on the value of the estate before our decision in the first appeal. Therefore, we reverse the order granting the petition and remand for reconsideration in light of current circumstances.

Greg Christopher Tonche appeals from a judgment of the superior court after a jury found him guilty of second degree burglary of a vehicle. Tonche contends that the officer who arrested him gave improper lay opinion testimony at trial about Tonche’s guilt. As we explain below, we find nothing improper about the officer’s testimony. We therefore affirm.

Mother appeals the summary denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition which sought unsupervised visitation with her 14-year-old daughter and her 12-year-old twin sons or, in the alternative, visitation supervised by a relative. We find no error and affirm.

Defendant Danquay Johnson appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a guilty plea to one count of misdemeanor grand theft of a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) and one count of participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). In accordance with the negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison, satisfied through credit for time served and good conduct. It additionally imposed gang registration (§ 186.30) and various fines and fees.

Amarjit Singh was killed when he was hit by an Amtrak train at a pedestrian crossing in the City of Fremont. Singh’s death was ruled a suicide. His family, allegedly in reliance on that conclusion, did not consult an attorney until after the time to file a claim under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) expired. After the city denied a request by Singh’s wife to file a late claim, his family filed a petition for relief in the superior court, which the court denied. We affirm.