CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Roxana Talamantes appeals after the transfer of her mandatory supervision from Riverside County to San Bernardino County. Upon the transfer, the San Bernardino County Probation Department recommended additional terms and conditions of probation imposed by San Bernardino County in order to ensure officer safety and offender compliance. Defendant objected to some of the new conditions. On appeal, defendant argues the San Bernardino County Superior Court had no jurisdiction to modify the terms of her mandatory supervision because no change in circumstance existed to justify the modification. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Monte Marques Walker and Robert Gene Edinbyrd of six and three counts, respectively, of premeditated and deliberate attempted murder in connection with gang-related shooting incidents. As to certain of the charged offenses, the jury returned true findings against defendants on firearm enhancements. Edinbyrd was 16 years old at the time he committed the offenses.

A jury convicted Ruben Kiko Hernandez of three counts of possession of
firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)) and one count of possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). It found true that Hernandez committed the four offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).)

A jury convicted Eduardo Leyva Cortez of two counts of vandalism over $400. (Pen. Code, § 594. subds. (a), (b)(1).) Cortez admitted he was released on bail at the time of the offenses. (§ 12022.1, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to a total term of four years eight months, suspended execution of the concluding two years and four months, and granted mandatory supervision for that period. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5).)
The same jury convicted Jose Tito Garcia of assault by means likely to produce

This case involves alleged wrongdoing by escrow companies and a title insurer dating back to 2006 in connection with a purchase of about a 1,000,000 square-foot office building located on Market Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (subject property). Plaintiffs Dennis Dierenfield, William B. Gilmer, Tye Wynfield, and NNN 1818 Market Street 13, LLC (TIC 13), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively, plaintiffs), appeal the judgment after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendants Commonwealth Land Title Company (CLT), Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (CLTI), and Ticor Title Company of California (Ticor) (collectively, defendants) to plaintiffs' first amended complaint (FAC).

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende and Kevin S., we note an error in the commitment order that requires correction. We order the commitment order corrected and affirm the judgment.

Minor D.N. appeals an order of the juvenile court requiring him to pay $10,000 in restitution to the victim G.K. D.N. argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that restitution because it was neither reasonably related to his crime nor to the threat of future criminality.
We disagree and affirm the restitution order.

Defendant Vincent Gerald Orosco-Hernandez appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree robbery, vandalism, and making a criminal threat. He contends insufficient evidence supports: (1) the verdict for making a criminal threat and (2) an order requiring him to pay $6,000 in attorney fees. He also requests the striking of interest included in a minute order, but not imposed by the court at rendition of judgment. The People concur the interest condition must be stricken. Both parties note the trial court’s failure to orally impose the restitution award to victim AM/PM.
We remand the case so the trial court may strike the condition of interest and exercise its discretion regarding the restitution award for AM/PM, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

This appeal originally came to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. After consideration of the briefing and undertaking an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence, which resulted from a plea bargain to a stipulated 12-year state prison term, including a 10-year mandatory enhancement for personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). (People v. Chavez (Aug. 8, 2017, C083663) [nonpub. opn.].) Our remittitur issued October 11, 2017.

Plaintiffs are “qualified patients” under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5) who cultivate marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation or approval of a physician. Plaintiffs brought the instant action for injunctive and declaratory relief related to amendments to Chapter 34A of the Butte County Code that restricted the cultivation of medical marijuana (Butte County Ord. No. 4075, amending Butte County Code, ch. 34A, §§ 34A-4, 34A-5, & 34A-8; hereinafter Ordinance No. 4075). Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their first amended complaint after the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. In sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court concluded that section 34A-4 does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the state or federal constitutions or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; hereinafter ADA).

Defendant Nicky Wayne Boone sexually abused two of his brother’s stepsons, J.M. and J.B. He was convicted by jury of three counts of oral copulation with a child who is 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)), three counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child who is under the age of 14 years (id., § 288, subd. (a)), and one count of possession of child pornography (id., § 311.11, subd. (a)). With respect to the counts of lewd or lascivious conduct, the jury also found multiple victim special allegations to be true. (Id., § 667.61, subd. (b).) In a bifurcated hearing, defendant admitted he was previously convicted of a serious felony offense, i.e., rape of an unconscious person. (Id., §§ 1170.12, 1192.7, subd. (c)(3).) The trial court sentenced him to serve an aggregate determinate prison term of six years eight months consecutive to an aggregate indeterminate term of 90 years to life and imposed other orders.

Defendant Alan Richard Ferger appeals from the denial of his Proposition 36 (the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012) petition for resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1170.126.) He contends the trial court erred in finding he was armed in the commission of his offense of felon in possession of a firearm and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution required that any fact rendering him ineligible for resentencing must be made beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. We shall affirm.

Breana F. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s findings and orders regarding her daughter E.M. and son B.M. B.M. was found alone on a street corner at age 18 months while mother was intoxicated after mixing alcohol and prescription medication. Mother argues this was an isolated incident and insufficient grounds for the juvenile court to assert jurisdiction and remove the children from her care. She also argues that the court abused its discretion by terminating jurisdiction after granting legal and physical custody to the children’s father Eric M. (father). We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Carlos Vasquez challenges the trial court’s imposition of a sentence of 45 years to life for his third-strike conviction for armed robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) to strike one of his prior felony conviction allegations for purposes of sentencing. He also contends that, following the passage of Senate Bill No. 620 (2017 2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 620), we must remand the case to the trial court to exercise its discretion regarding whether to impose a handgun enhancement. We agree with Vasquez’s argument on Senate Bill No. 620, and we remand the case for a new sentencing hearing. Otherwise, we affirm.