CA Unpub Decisions

The issue in this case is whether appellant was properly convicted of a felony for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851. The matter was transferred to us from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its decision in People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page). Page held a violation of section 10851 constitutes a misdemeanor for purposes of Proposition 47 if it was based on the theft of a vehicle valued at $950 or less. Conversely, a conviction based on posttheft driving falls outside the scope of the initiative and may be treated as a felony. Because the jury instructions in appellant’s case did not make that distinction clear, and because the record fails to disclose the basis on which the jury convicted him of violating section 10851, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The trial court denied defendant Robert James Bartlett’s petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 for the reduction of his felony convictions to misdemeanors. He had been convicted of unlawfully taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 and receiving a stolen motor vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.) Bartlett argued his convictions fell within the category of felony offenses that qualify for reduction to misdemeanors by the passage of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47).

On June 21, 2016, defendant and appellant Craig Holland pled guilty to one count of spousal battery inflicting corporal injury with a prior conviction under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1). Additionally, defendant admitted that he had a conviction for a 1998 strike offense under Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (c) and (3), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). Moreover, defendant acknowledged that he was in violation of a grant of probation in case Number BAF1500165. In accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the low term of two years, doubled to four years because of the strike. On the probation violation, the court sentenced defendant to serve a two-year concurrent sentence.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Wesley Barthum Arnot, of misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), a lesser included offense of the felony charge of resisting an executive officer (count 1; § 69). The court placed defendant on informal, summary probation for three years with a term that defendant be banned from possessing a gun “during the course of his probation[.]”

Defendant and appellant Silvia Ester Pierre appeals her conviction on one count of battery by gassing, in violation of Penal Code section 243.9, subdivision (a). She contends that the trial court erred by refusing her request for an instruction on self-defense. We find no error. Nor do we find any error in the conditions of probation imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment. We will, however, order correction of the sentencing minutes to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.

In 2006, defendant and appellant Robert Diaz Ramos pled guilty to the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 1) and evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 2). Subsequently, California voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which among other things established a procedure for specified classes of offenders to have their felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors and be resentenced accordingly. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.)

In this insurance coverage dispute, THV Investments, LLC (THV) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 100% Syndicate 5151 (Lloyds) and several of Lloyds's related entities. In granting summary judgment, the trial court found that Lloyds owed no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Ernesto R. Ruiz, in a separate lawsuit that THV filed against Ruiz relating to the unsuccessful development of a residential subdivision. Specifically, the trial court concluded that the causes of action that THV asserted against Ruiz in the separate action did not constitute claims for "property damage," and thus did not fall within the scope of coverage under Ruiz's commercial general liability insurance policy (the CGL Policy). Additionally, the trial court found that two endorsements to the CGL Policy—which limited Lloyds's duty to defend and indemnify Ruiz against claims

Natalia Moaten pleaded guilty to the fraudulent appropriation of property and money by an agent in excess of $950 (Pen. Code, § 508). The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. Moaten was granted probation on various terms and conditions. Moaten filed a timely appeal and was granted a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).
Moaten appeals challenging three probation conditions, although she did not object to the conditions in the trial court. As we will explain, Moaten has forfeited her challenge to the probation conditions for failure to make a timely objection. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

Appellant Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc., acting through its agent Golden Boy Bail Bonds (together, the Surety), posted a $100,000 bail bond on behalf of Hiram A. Novoa who later failed to make a required court appearance. The trial court forfeited the bond under Penal Code section 1305 and later entered summary judgment against the Surety. The Surety appeals from the order denying its motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate bond, and the subsequent judgment. The Surety contends that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the bond when it failed to enter summary judgment as required by section 1306 within 90 days of the expiration of the statutory appearance period provided by section 1305. We affirm.

Petitioner Suzanne Sullivan Watkins appeals from a probate court order granting objector Emmett Hill's motion to vacate judgment in the probate of the estate of Bernard Sullivan. Watkins was one of Sullivan's siblings, and co-administrator of the estate. Hill was a cousin. After probate concluded, Hill filed his motion on the grounds that Watkins burned a last will giving him the estate and failed to provide him with notice of the probate proceedings. The court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the motion, finding Hill was a reasonably ascertainable heir who did not receive notice and the probate orders resulted from extrinsic fraud.

Early on July 13, 2014, there was a wild shoot-out by the Hookah Lounge near Fulton Avenue and Arden Way in Sacramento. Tyrell Hall was killed and two people were injured. A jury found defendant Salvador Ramon Martinez guilty of second degree murder, and found he personally and intentionally discharged a semiautomatic firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d).) The trial court sentenced him to prison for 40 years to life, and he timely appealed.

A group of friends who had known each other for years reconnected after growing apart. In the process, defendant Dinette Patterson stabbed Charles Jordan, killing him. A complaint deemed an information charged defendant with murder and personal use of a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant’s first jury trial ended in a mistrial. A second jury found defendant guilty and the court sentenced defendant to 26 years to life in state prison. Defendant appeals, arguing when the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the first trial insufficient evidence supported the verdict, and the court erred in admitting testimony concerning motive during the second trial. We shall affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Howard Zochlinski appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of mandate against the City of Davis. He was served with notice of entry of judgment of dismissal on November 4, 2014, and then filed a motion for a new trial, a motion for reconsideration, and a motion to vacate the judgment with the trial court on December 2, 2014. He did not file a notice of appeal from the judgment of dismissal until January 7, 2015 -- 64 days after he was served with notice of entry of judgment. Because plaintiff filed an untimely notice of appeal and none of the motions he filed served to extend the time in which to file it, we are required to dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

An information charged Franky Robert Mendez with fleeing from a peace officer’s vehicle while driving in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (count one); driving or taking a vehicle without consent of the owner with a prior felony theft conviction in violation of Penal Code section 666.5 (count two); driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license in violation of Vehicle Code section 12500, subdivision (a) (count three); and willful disobedience of a criminal street gang injunction in violation of Penal Code section 166, subdivision (a)(9) (count four). The information further alleged as to counts one and two that Mendez had two prison priors. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) Mendez pleaded not guilty to all counts and denied the allegations. Before trial, the People dismissed counts three and four.