CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant, Abdul Shukur Abdulrazak, appeals a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(4); count one), battery resulting in great bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count two), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count three). The jury found true the enhancements that in committing counts one and two, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total aggregate prison term of five years. Defendant argues his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective for failing to move to exclude statements defendant’s daughter previously made about specific violent and fraudulent acts committed by defendant to impeach her testimony that defendant was nonviolent.
We affirm.

In November 2015, a jury found defendant Chris Crawford Casto guilty of arson of an inhabited structure and misdemeanor theft of utility services. A year later, the trial court sentenced him to state prison. A year later, his briefing on appeal was completed. We granted his motion for calendar preference and expedited review premised on his scheduled release date of September 2018.
On appeal, defendant contends the prosecutor prejudicially failed to correct false testimony regarding a pungent smell detected in the remains of the home, violated a ruling in limine in questioning a witness, and committed misconduct in characterizing a defense expert’s testimony in closing argument. He asserts defense counsel was ineffective in failing to present evidence of a non-accelerant source for the pungent odor. Finally, he claims the trial court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte on the lesser offense of recklessly causing a fire to an inhabited structure. We shall affirm the judgm

Defendant James Roberts challenges a condition of his probation authorizing the warrantless search of electronic storage devices, including cell phones and computers under his control. He contends the search condition: (1) is invalid under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent); (2) violates the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Pen. Code, § 1546 et seq.; hereafter ECPA) and the wiretap statute (§ 631); and (3) is unconstitutional under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also argues the condition is unconstitutionally overbroad. We agree with the last contention, but not the others. Because the condition is overbroad, we will strike the electronic search condition and remand the case to the superior court to consider in the first instance whether the condition can be narrowed in a manner that will allow it to pass constitutional muster.

In March 2016, defendant Christopher Scot Novak pleaded no contest to misdemeanor allowing a place for the storing or processing or cultivation of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.5, subd. (a).) Per the parties’ agreement, the trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and granted defendant three years’ probation with 90 days in county jail. The remaining counts were dismissed.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to traverse the search warrant and not holding an evidentiary hearing based on material omissions and misrepresentations in the affidavit and (2) the trial court erred in granting the prosecutor’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum for records from Western States Information Network (WSIN). We conclude there was sufficient evidence in the affidavit to establish probable cause for the search warrant and no material omissions or misrepresentations in the affidavit.

Stephen Sandeen, appellant appearing in propria persona, appeals from a judgment dissolving his marriage to Anne Lizardo and awarding Lizardo sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor children. Sandeen has filed a lengthy opening brief that challenges everything from the trial court’s jurisdiction over his case to the court’s qualifications and lack of bias. He fails to support what appear to be his key claims with either meaningful citations to the record or any relevant authority.
Although he asks that we consider his “submissions liberally” and use our “common sense to determine the relief that [he] desire[s]” (emphasis removed) we cannot overlook the fact that Sandeen completely abdicates his well-settled duty as appellant to affirmatively show error of any kind in the proceedings below. His brief does little more than express frustration with the family court and its processes.

In January 1992, defendant Matthew Robert Brusin was convicted of violating Penal Code section 288, resulting in a lifelong sexual offender registration requirement pursuant to section 290. In April 1993, the trial court granted defendant permission to move to Guam. In May 2015, defendant traveled to California on a round trip ticket, with his return scheduled in October 2015. On July 22, 2015, he was arrested for failure to register as a sex offender. In November 2015, defendant pled no contest to failure to register as a sex offender within five days of release from incarceration. (§ 290.015.) On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his section 995 motion to dismiss the information. We affirm.

Stephen Vann, defendant Jeffrey L. Bailey’s cousin by marriage, owed defendant $500 for marijuana. Following a series of acrimonious text messages and various efforts by Vann to repay the loan, defendant stabbed Vann. A complaint deemed an information charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon and alleged great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a).) A jury found defendant guilty and the trial court granted defendant five years’ probation, including 120 days in jail on the assault conviction and stayed the punishment on the great bodily injury enhancement. Defendant appeals, arguing instructional error, prosecutorial misconduct, jury misconduct and cumulative error. We shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant, driving at a high rate of speed through a residential neighborhood at night, struck G.W., H.L.-R., and G.W.’s four dogs. Defendant then fled without stopping. G.W. sustained serious injuries. The four dogs were killed. H.L.-R.’s leg was severed and he later died from his injuries. Defendant was arrested three days after the collision. The arresting officer concluded that defendant was under the influence of marijuana and possibly another drug at the time of his arrest.

Defendant Dante Bowens was convicted by jury of two counts of forcible sodomy (Counts 1 & 2), one count of forcible rape (Count 3), one count of forcible oral copulation (Count 4), one count of pimping (Count 5), three counts of pandering (Counts 6-8), and one count of selling or furnishing a controlled substance (Count 9). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found defendant was previously convicted of a serious felony offense within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and had three prior narcotics convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate determinate term of 82 years in the state prison.

Ellis Lee Clark, Jr., (appellant) was charged with, inter alia, possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).) He pleaded no contest and admitted he was previously convicted of burglary (§ 459) subjecting him to sentencing under the “Three Strikes” Law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(j), 1170.12, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to the low term of 16 months, doubled under the Three Strikes law to 32 months.
Appellant appealed from the judgment.
His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) raising no issues. On May 17, 2018, we notified appellant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file his own brief or letter stating grounds for appellate relief. He submitted a letter arguing that his conviction should be reversed based on ineffective assistance of counsel and various other grounds.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
H.E. (mother) appeals from the dependency court’s finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply to her son, J.M. J.M. was removed from his father (hereafter father) after he was found wandering alone at night while in father’s care. At the time, mother and father had an informal, mutual custody arrangement in which J.M. alternated living with each parent. The court found mother to be a nonoffending parent, and placed J.M. in her physical custody. As neither DCFS nor the court contemplated placing J.M. in foster care, and because J.M. remained in mother’s sole physical custody, we affirm.

In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Jonathan Marcantho Furguiele was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and assault on a child causing death (§ 273ab, subd. (a); count 2). The jury found defendant guilty of both counts and determined count 1 to be second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison on count 2. The sentence on count 1 (15 years to life) was imposed and stayed pursuant to section 654.
Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on accident (CALCRIM No. 3404).
We affirm.

Defendant Japanese Village, LLC appeals from a judgment following a jury trial. Plaintiff the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority filed an eminent domain action against defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010 et seq. for the taking of easements on defendant’s property. The parties proceeded to trial and the jury awarded defendant a fair market value of $622,000 for the easements taken plus severance damages in the amount of $5,013,500, for a total of $5,635,500.
Defendant contends that plaintiff’s expert should not have been permitted to testify that the highest and best use of the property (after the taking) was the construction of a mixed-use seven-story structure because no one had obtained a discretionary permit for such a development.

A jury found Nestor Velasquez (Velasquez) guilty of robbery, but deadlocked when deciding whether the robbery was committed for the benefit of a street gang and deadlocked as to whether Velasquez or a principal personally used a firearm during the robbery. On appeal, Velasquez contends that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of identity at trial. We disagree with Velasquez and affirm the conviction.