CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Stephen Paul Zimmerman appeals a judgment convicting him of felony indecent exposure and sentencing him to three years in state prison. After being admonished for disruptive behavior, defendant chose to remain in his jail cell throughout most of the trial court proceedings, except when he was testifying. On appeal, he contends the trial court violated his constitutional and statutory rights in granting his request to be excused from the courtroom without first obtaining an “adequate waiver.” We find no error and shall affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship petition alleging that V.B. possessed a BB gun on school grounds (count 1), brandished an imitation firearm at another (count 2), and failed to stop at the scene of an accident (count 3). V.B. contends substantial evidence is lacking for the brandishing and hit-and-run offenses. We agree and reverse the judgment as to those counts.

The Ascension Heights Subdivision Project (the project) is a proposed housing development in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County known locally as Water Tank Hill. In February 2016, San Mateo Real Estate, Inc. (Developers) secured approval to proceed with the project from the County of San Mateo (County). However, Responsible Development for Water Tank Hill (Appellant) challenged the County’s decision by filing a petition for a writ of mandate. This is an appeal from the denial of Appellant’s petition. Appellant contends the County’s approval of the project violates (1) the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and (2) the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code § 66410 et seq.). We affirm the judgment.

E.M. (Minor) appeals from an order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered after the juvenile court sustained allegations that, when Minor was between the ages of 12 and 15, he committed three sex offenses against two daughters of his father’s girlfriend, R.S. and K.M. The court placed Minor on probation, in the custody of his parents, under various terms and conditions.
On appeal, Minor contends reversal is required because (1) the juvenile court failed to meet its obligations under the deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) statutory scheme described in section 790 et seq.; (2) the juvenile court prejudicially erred in excluding Minor’s father from the courtroom when the sisters testified during his jurisdictional hearing; and (3) the juvenile court’s order sustaining the allegations of the petition lacked adequate evidentiary support. Minor also contends the juvenile court erred in imposing certain probation conditions.

A jury found defendant Diamond Adams guilty of attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and battery with serious bodily injury after he stabbed a young man in the back in a grocery store.
Adams raises two claims of error: the trial court provided an incorrect jury instruction on imperfect self-defense, and the court should have discharged a juror for sleeping during the trial. Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm.

Defendants and appellants Chinin Tana and Jeffrey Chang (collectively, defendants) appeal from the trial court’s judgment, following a bifurcated court trial, in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Burlingame Investment (Barbados), Inc. (BIB); Burlingame Investment Corporation (BIC); BIC Properties, Inc. (BIC Properties); NDC, Inc. (NDC); Vintage Associates (Vintage); and Burlingame Limen Corporation (Burlingame Limen) (collectively, plaintiff entities), together with individuals Jackie Lam and Lai Ming Chan Meyer (collectively, with plaintiff entities, plaintiffs), in this action arising from the attempted takeover of plaintiff entities by defendants Herman Kwai, Chinin Tana, Jeffery Chang, Rafael Pacquing, and Michael Choy.

The present case is before this court for a second time, after the California Supreme Court granted review, deferred briefing, and then transferred it back to this court for reconsideration in light of People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page). At issue is whether the trial court erred when it denied defendant Morgan Ramsey Rees’s petition to redesignate his conviction for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) as a misdemeanor. We affirm the order because defendant failed to show that he was convicted of a theft offense.

The present case is before this court for a second time, after the California Supreme Court granted review, deferred briefing, and then transferred it back to this court for reconsideration in light of People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page). At issue is whether the trial court erred when it denied defendant Guzmaro Ambriz Juarez’s petition to reduce his conviction for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) to a misdemeanor and be resentenced accordingly. We affirm the order because defendant failed to show that he was convicted of a theft offense and that the value of the vehicle did not exceed $950.

The present case is before this court for a second time, after the California Supreme Court granted review, deferred briefing, and then transferred it back to this court for reconsideration in light of People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page). At issue is whether the trial court erred when it denied defendant Frank Alex Gonzales’s petition to reduce his conviction for theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) to a misdemeanor and be resentenced accordingly. We affirm the order because defendant failed to show that he was convicted of a theft offense and that the value of the vehicle did not exceed $950.

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that the minor would be at risk if returned to his mother, and that the mother received reasonable reunification services. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err when it denied the mother’s request for a continuance of a hearing so that she could receive additional services. The petition is denied.

A jury convicted defendant Luis Mendoza of three counts of attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation, three counts of robbery, three counts of assault with an automatic firearm, and one count of active participation in a criminal street gang. The jury also found true personal firearm use and criminal street gang sentence enhancement allegations. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 40 years to life, plus 38 years and four months.
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. He also seeks a remand for further sentencing proceedings (1) to make a record for a future youth offender parole hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), (2) to clarify the proper minimum terms on the attempted murder counts and related enhancements, and (3) to give the court an opportunity to exercise its discretion to strike the Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) (section 12022.5(a)) firearm use enhancements. The A

Appellant Todd O. (father) appeals from dispositional orders denying him reunification services in dependency proceedings concerning his now 12-year-old daughter, Trinity O., five-year-old daughter, N.O., and four-year-old son, Jacob H. The juvenile court relied on Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) and (11), which respectively permit the denial of reunification services to a parent who inflicts severe physical harm to a child or whose parental rights to a sibling of the child were terminated. Father contends the court erred in denying him reunification services because the statute does not apply and, alternatively, providing him reunification services served the children’s best interests. We conclude the juvenile court properly denied father reunification services under subdivision (b)(6) of section 361.5 and affirm.

Appellant/defendant Demetrius Cummings was convicted of committing multiple sexual offenses against his girlfriend’s two daughters and her niece. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 45 years to life.
On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant filed a letter brief that challenges the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. We affirm.

Appellant/defendant Melissa Hensley was convicted of felony battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), based on an incident where she attacked a neighbor and repeatedly hit the neighbor in the head with a rock. She was placed on probation.
On appeal, defendant contends the court improperly permitted the investigating deputy to testify that the victim’s trial testimony was consistent with her statements shortly after the incident. Defendant further contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating evidence in closing argument. We order the correction of the minute order and otherwise affirm.