CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted DeJohn Miller and Steffen Luther Fields, Jr. of two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code), in Miller’s case accomplished with a firearm. Defendants, who were tried together, argue it was error to instruct the jury it could find them individually guilty based on finding they acted collectively to deprive the victims of property by fear. Miller argues it was error for the trial court to bar him from showing the tattoos on his hands during closing argument. Fields argues his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to object to a victim identifying him in open court. Finally, Miller appeals the firearm enhancements to his sentence (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) because the Legislature gave trial courts the discretion to strike such enhancements after his sentencing, but before final judgment.

The family court entered a judgment of dissolution of the marriage of Richard Von Hurst (Husband) and Linda Von Hurst (Wife). The family court ordered that Husband did not have to pay spousal support to Wife until Wife moved to her own residence and became self-supporting; when those conditions were met, Husband would be required to pay $389 per month in spousal support.
Prior to trial, Wife subpoenaed Irene Cheung, who was Husband’s girlfriend, to attend a deposition. Wife requested Cheung produce any and all documents relating to money Cheung loaned or gave to Husband. After the deposition, Wife served a deposition subpoena seeking production of Cheung’s American Express credit card statements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) The American Express statements were not produced and Wife brought a motion to compel. The family court denied Wife’s motion to compel.

Defendant and appellant Donald Colin was upset when the manager of the Santa Cruz Inn (the Inn), Mageneran Govender, required a deposit in addition to the rate to rent a room for the night. Defendant left the Inn and went across the street, yelling at Govender and the Inn’s maintenance man and security guard, Rene Rodriguez, that they were “fucking Muslims.” Govender yelled back and defendant approached them. Defendant stabbed Govender in the neck. Govender tried to punch defendant but was too weak. He got up to run away and defendant stabbed him in the back. Defendant then chased after Rodriguez and eventually stabbed him in the shoulder. Defendant testified that he never stabbed either of the two men and that Rodriguez hit him with a baseball bat.

A jury convicted Jose Osmin Lopez of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 by force (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1); count 1) and lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); count 2). The trial court sentenced Lopez to prison for eight years.
Lopez appeals, contending (1) the trial court committed reversible error when it did not allow him to present expert witness testimony to explain how police interrogation techniques used to elicit Lopez's partial confession could lead to a false confession and (2) his right to present a complete defense as well as his right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments was violated. We affirm.

Douandta Xaypanya pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully transporting a controlled substance of a useable amount for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 3) and admitted he had a prior conviction for sale of a controlled substance in violation of section 11379, subdivision (a), within the meaning of section 11370.2, former subdivision (c). In exchange, the People stipulated to a sentence of five years to be served in local prison and dismissal of the balance of the charges. On September 28, 2017, pursuant to the stipulation, the court sentenced Xaypanya to five years in local custody based upon the low term of two years for count 3 plus three years for the prior conviction enhancement pursuant to section 11370.2, former subdivision (c), and dismissed the remaining charges.

Anthony B. Goss appeals the judgment on his conviction by jury of attempted residential burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 459, 460, subd. (a); all further statutory references are to this code unless noted.) Goss received a total term of 14 years in prison.
On appeal, Goss contends that insufficient evidence supports the conviction, because it was based on accomplice testimony but without independent corroborative evidence connecting him to the crime. (§ 1111 [evidence "tend[ing] to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense" required where accomplice testimony presented; People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 32 (Romero) ["for the jury to rely on an accomplice's testimony about the circumstances of an offense, it must find evidence that ' "without aid from the accomplice's testimony, tend[s] to connect the defendant with the crime." ' "]; id. at p. 37.)

Les Czternasty, who is self-represented, appeals a judgment awarding him no damages in his personal injury action. Czternasty contends (1) without his knowledge, the special verdict form submitted to the jury was changed from the one he approved; (2) the jury engaged in guesswork in reaching its award; and (3) the judge who presided over the trial erred by receiving the verdict without requiring the jury to deliberate further. We affirm the judgment.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
The People charged defendant Christopher Robin Minor with arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b)--count I) and two counts of arson of a structure and forest land (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c)--counts II and III). Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and pleaded guilty to counts II and III. The parties agreed the report numbered 17CATGU009410 and prepared by the California Department of Forestry, formed the factual basis for the plea. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People moved to dismiss the remaining charge with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754; the court granted the People’s motion.
Citing defendant’s lack of a criminal record, the trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to the low term of two years on his conviction for count II and a consecutive term of 16 months on count III.

Defendant Jason Adam Holtman appeals after a jury found him guilty of several gun-related offenses and found true firearm use allegations pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a). On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for assault with a firearm and for making criminal threats.
Accordingly, we will affirm defendant’s convictions but will remand the case for the trial court to correct several sentencing errors and to exercise its informed discretion when imposing sentence on the gun enhancements.

Defendant James Garry moved in March 2016 for, inter alia, sanctions against plaintiff Andrea Gabriele for her litigation conduct (primarily in propria persona) in this family law matter, which we detail at length below. The trial court confirmed the total amount owing to Gabriele under various court orders, which it offset with $4,500 in legal fees to Garry as a sanction (denying Gabriele’s own request for legal fees).
Gabriele filed her notice of appeal in February 2017. She completed her briefing in April 2018. She contends the trial court abused its considerable discretion in family law matters in awarding legal fees to Garry as a sanction for her behavior. She also contends she was entitled to legal fees as a matter of law pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 724.080 (section 724.080). We shall affirm the order but remand the matter for consideration of further sanctions for a meritless (even if not frivolous) appeal.

violated the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to a previously imposed but suspended 10 years in state prison. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5) plus a penalty assessment, and a drug program fee (§ 11372.7) plus a penalty assessment, even though those fees and assessments had not been previously imposed.
In his appellant’s opening brief, defendant argued (1) the drug program fee was unauthorized because it was not previously imposed, (2) the criminal laboratory analysis fee and drug program fee were not subject to penalty assessments, and (3) the penalty assessments had to be reversed because the trial court did not articulate the basis for the fees and calculated the assessments incorrectly.

In August 2013, a jury found defendants William Tipton, Jr., and Frayba (Sarwary) Tipton guilty of two counts of embezzlement of personal property (a 2006 Ford truck and a 2008 Ford Mustang) held under a contract of purchase (Pen. Code, § 504a) with Ford Motor Credit Company, which held legal title. It further found defendant Tipton guilty of perjury in connection with a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) form, and embezzlement (§ 503) of a 2004 Ford Mustang to which a credit union held legal title pursuant to a loan, acquitting him of two counts of insurance fraud and one count of defrauding an insurer. Finally, it found defendant Sarwary Tipton guilty of two counts of perjury in connection with a different DMV form. In May 2015, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation conditioned on a jail term. Briefing on appeal was completed in February 2018.

Plaintiff Corey T. Hofheinz alleges that after he defaulted on his home mortgage loan, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) offered to modify his loan in accordance with the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). He communicated his desire to pursue such a modification to Wells Fargo within a few days, but Wells Fargo sold his home a week later at a trustee’s sale without notice and without first determining whether he was eligible for a HAMP loan modification. Hofheinz sued Wells Fargo for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, unlawful business practices in violation of the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and promissory estoppel. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal.

Plaintiff Ty Crawford borrowed over $615,000, secured by his residence in Orangevale, California. Crawford alleges that when he borrowed this sum, his monthly income was $7,500. Crawford further alleges his mortgage broker and lender intentionally misstated his monthly income as $21,167 on his loan application to ensure the loan would be approved by the underwriters. Neither the original lender nor the mortgage broker are respondents here.