CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted codefendants Amber Griffin, Calvin Kelly, Jessie Arellano, and Angelina Olsen of robbery and related charges. The information was based on two separate incidents: the carjacking of P.H. by Kelly and Olsen, and the aggravated kidnapping of R.N. by Kelly, Griffin and Arellano. The two incidents were initially filed separately and later were consolidated by the trial court. On appeal, Griffin and Arellano challenge the court’s decision to consolidate the cases, and raise claims of insufficiency of the evidence, instructional and evidentiary error, and prosecutorial misconduct. Kelly claims the trial court made various sentencing errors, an argument in which Arellano joins. Finally, all appellants ask that the case be remanded for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 620 dealing with firearm enhancements. We affirm the conviction as modified, and reverse for a new sentencing hearing as to Kelly, Arellano and Griffin.

Defendant Vanessa McCoy was placed on probation for three years after pleading no contest to one felony count of causing injury while driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or more and admitting the allegation that she caused bodily injury to more than one victim. More than three years later, the trial court extended probation, believing that an intervening six-week period when it was revoked did not count as part of the three-year term. On appeal, McCoy claims, and the Attorney General concedes, that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend probation because the three-year term had expired. We agree and direct the court to discharge McCoy from probation.

Monica Haynes appeals from a judgment following her guilty plea to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The trial court initially granted Haynes three years' formal probation. When Haynes admitted to violating certain probation conditions, the court imposed (but suspended execution of) a five-year prison term, and reinstated her probation, with the additional condition that Haynes complete a residential treatment program. When Haynes again violated certain terms of her probation (as determined after an evidentiary hearing), the trial court revoked her probation and imposed the suspended five-year prison sentence. Haynes appeals.

Defendant Jerome Edwards Dean appeals the judgment following his convictions of corporal injury to his girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.5), dissuading a witness by force or threat (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)) and misdemeanor criminal contempt (Pen. Code, § 166). He admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b) – (j), 1170.12) and a five year serious felony prior (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)). His sentence on this case and a consolidated case was 14 years in state prison.
Appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.

This is the second of two appeals filed by seller Mehrdad Elie concerning his sale of a condominium to buyer John Kallie. In the first appeal (Ellie v. Kallie, B272360), seller challenged the judgment ordering the sale of the property and awarding attorney fees and costs to buyer. In this appeal, seller attacks the postjudgment order requiring him to post an undertaking or appeal bond to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. In neither appeal, however, did seller petition for a writ of supersedeas to stay enforcement of the postjudgment order. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

Appellants Jeremy Griffin and Boise Duggan (appellants) were convicted of the second degree murder of Juan Hernandez, among other offenses. We conclude the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the car Duggan was driving when he was arrested had recently been carjacked, and in excluding evidence of Hernandez’s violent character. The errors were prejudicial as to Duggan’s murder conviction, but harmless as to Griffin’s murder conviction. Otherwise, we reject appellants’ claims.

Defendant Kelin Harris challenges his sentence on the ground the trial court misunderstood and abused its discretion by failing to dismiss his strike priors. We conclude the court neither misunderstood nor abused its discretion. We also conclude, however, that the matter should be remanded for the court to exercise its discretion on whether to strike the imposed firearm enhancements under newly enacted Senate Bill No. 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.).

In case No. 13F6723, a jury found defendant Brian Keith Hamilton guilty in December 2015 of the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. In case No. 15F3598, another jury found defendant guilty in February 2016 of second degree robbery, criminal threats, false imprisonment by violence, and misdemeanor battery; it also sustained allegations that defendant committed these offenses while on bail pending trial in case No. 13F6723. The trial court initially sentenced defendant to state prison in the two cases. After filing his notice of appeal in May 2016, defendant filed a petition to recall the sentence. The trial court granted the petition, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on probation. Briefing was completed in October 2017.

Ignacio Salgado, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated (appellant), appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted the “Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication” (MSA), filed by Torrance Holdings, LLC doing business as The Daily Breeze (Daily Breeze), MediaNews Group, Inc., and Long Beach Publishing doing business as the Long Beach Press-Telegram (Press Telegram) (collectively respondents). Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s ruling on appellant’s certified class claim against respondents for reimbursement of business expenses under California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802.

Defendant Lisa Rosenthal, doing business as the Law Offices of Lisa Rosenthal and Associates (the law firm), appeals from the order of the trial court sanctioning the law firm pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 for filing a frivolous motion. We affirm the order.

Defendant and appellant Arthur Lee Trimble was charged with second degree burglary of a closed business. (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1.) It was also alleged that he had served four prior prison terms. A jury found defendant guilty of count 1. Pursuant to a negotiated sentence, he admitted the four prison priors, and the court sentenced him to a total of five years in county jail, with 188 days of custody credits.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.

J.T., a mentally disordered offender (MDO; Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.), appeals an order authorizing the Department of State Hospitals-Atascadero (the Hospital) to involuntarily administer psychotropic medication to treat appellant’s severe mental disorder (In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1 (Qawi)). Appellant contends the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that he is incompetent to refuse treatment. We affirm.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. Pacific Loan Solutions, LLC (Pacific) sued its commercial owners association, Garry Plaza Office Park Association (Garry Plaza or the association), for various causes of action relating to Pacific’s ownership of a unit in the association. Garry Plaza moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that it arose from its rights to free speech and petition, specifically, settlement negotiations it had undertaken with Pacific. The trial court disagreed, concluding the complaint arose from the underlying disputes. We agree with the trial court and therefore affirm the order.

Petitioner Brittany J. is the mother of now nine-month-old R.J., who was declared a dependent of the Stanislaus County Juvenile Court and is the subject of these original proceedings. At the conclusion of a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court denied Brittany (mother) reunification services on multiple grounds (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b)(6), (10) & (11)) and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select a permanent plan. Mother filed a petition seeking an extraordinary writ to overturn the court’s orders. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) She contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s order denying her reunification services. We conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s denial of services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and deny the petition.