CA Unpub Decisions

On September 7, 2018, defendant broke into his ex-girlfriend’s home and physically attacked her, hitting her in the face multiple times and squeezing her throat until she lost consciousness. As he attacked her, she made her way to the street in front of her home, and defendant fled when several of her neighbors came to her aid. Two people in a truck pursued defendant.
A few minutes later, defendant returned to the scene in his pick-up truck, and accelerated as it approached where his ex-girlfriend and her neighbors were standing. Defendant’s truck struck a fence, his ex-girlfriend’s truck, and a parked car belonging to a neighbor. Defendant’s ex girlfriend and two of her neighbors were struck by either defendant’s truck or one of the other vehicles that defendant’s truck struck.
Defendant was apprehended by responding sheriff’s deputies.

Flavio Rodriguez pleaded no contest on November 10, 2020, in case No. F20907203 to carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle with an allegation that he was not the registered owner of the firearm and that the firearm was loaded or ammunition immediately available (Pen. Code, § 25400, subds. (a)(1) and (c)(6)) and possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a)). The trial court indicated a three-year four-month maximum total aggregate sentence with two other pending cases (case Nos. F20906645 and M20920515) .
Rodriguez was sentenced on February 23, 2021, as follows: the middle term of two years in state prison for count 1 in Case No. M20920515; eight months consecutive for count 1 in Case No. F20906645; eight months consecutive for count 1 in Case No. F20907203; and the middle term of two years concurrent for count 2 in Case No. F20907203. Rodriguez was awarded 264 days credit for time served, including 130 actual days and 130 conduct credits.

Flavio Rodriguez pleaded guilty on November 10, 2020, in case No. F20906645 to possession of a zip gun (Pen. Code, § 33600) and possession of a drug smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). The trial court indicated a three-year four-month maximum total aggregate sentence with two other pending cases (case Nos. F20907203 and M20920515).
Rodriguez was sentenced on February 23, 2021, as follows: the middle term of two years in state prison for count 1 in Case No. M20920515; eight months consecutive for count 1 in Case No. F20906645; eight months consecutive for count 1 in Case No. F20907203; and the middle term of two years concurrent for count 2 in Case No. F20907203. Rodriguez was awarded 264 days credit for time served, including 130 actual days and 130 conduct credits. A restitution fine of $1,200 was imposed in each case and a parole revocation fine of the same amount was stayed.

Flavio Rodriguez pleaded guilty on November 10, 2020, in case No. M20920515 to driving with a 0.08% or higher blood-alcohol content with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)). The trial court indicated a three-year four-month maximum total aggregate sentence with two other pending cases (case Nos. F20906645 and F20907203) .
Rodriguez was sentenced on February 23, 2021, as follows: the middle term of two years in state prison for count 1 in Case No. M20920515; eight months consecutive for count 1 in Case No. F20906645; eight months consecutive for count 1 in Case No. F20907203; and the middle term of two years concurrent for count 2 in Case No. F20907203. Rodriguez was awarded 264 days credit for time served, including 130 actual days and 130 conduct credits. A restitution fine of $1,200 was imposed in each case and a parole revocation fine of the same amount was stayed.

Montoya was charged with transportation of heroin for sale (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) ; possession of heroin for sale (count 2; § 11351); transportation of methamphetamine for sale (count 3; § 11379, subd. (a)); possession of methamphetamine for sale (count 4; § 11378); possession of heroin while possessing a firearm (count 5; § 11370.1, subd. (a)); possession of methamphetamine while possessing a firearm (count 6; 11370.1, subd. (a)); unauthorized use of a vehicle (count 7; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); receiving a stolen vehicle (count 8; Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)); and driving under the influence of a narcotic (count 9; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (f)). It was further alleged that Montoya was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.07, subd. (a)(2), 12022, subd.

Vicente Roberto Mejia (“Defendant”) groped another person at a casino in Kings County. When questioned after the incident, defendant provided a false name and identification to law enforcement.
An information charged defendant with (among other conduct) misdemeanor sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (e)(1); count 3) and misdemeanor assault and battery (§ 242; count 5). After a bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of both charges.
On appeal, defendant claims section 954 requires reversal of his conviction for simple battery. The People agree defendant is entitled to this relief.
Defendant also asks us to correct the minute order to reflect he did not commit battery by the use of force or violence. The People do not agree with defendant on this point.
We reverse defendant’s conviction for battery because it is a lesser included offense of sexual battery. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

Defendant was granted three years of probation after a jury convicted him of assaulting his father and sister. He contends on appeal the trial court erred in (1) including marijuana in the list of prohibited substances as a condition of probation and (2) imposing fines, fees, and assessments without determining whether defendant had the ability to pay them. The People argue that defendant forfeited both issues by failing to object when the trial court imposed the probation conditions and the fines, fees, and assessments. We agree and affirm the judgment.
The District Attorney of Kern County filed an information on June 10, 2020, charging Alejandro Garcia with felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and misdemeanor assault (§ 241, subd. (a); count 2). As to count 1, the information alleged that defendant had a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (c)–(j), 1170.12, subds.

On February 25, 2006, H.J. and his friend, J.O., attended a birthday party for H.J.’s nine-year-old nephew. The party was held at the home of Maria J. (Maria), H.J.’s sister, that was located in the territory of a regional subset of the Norteño gang called the Varrios Farmas Catorce (VFC.) The VFC identify themselves with the color red. J.O. wore a blue checkered shirt to the party. J.O. testified that he was not a member of the Norteño’s rival gang, the Sureños, but was aware that the Sureños identify with the color blue.
While eating in his sister’s open-door garage with J.O. and three or four other friends, H.J. noticed a grown man with a red handkerchief wrapped around his hand. This man went in and out of a neighbor’s house while talking on a telephone and looking toward Maria’s house. After this man talked on the phone, 10 to 12 more men arrived in front of the neighbor’s house. Maria saw one man at this house and then saw more men slowly start to arrive.

In December 2015, a jury found defendant guilty of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a); count 1); making criminal threats (§ 422; count 3); misdemeanor battery upon a spouse or cohabitant (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); count 5) and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 6). In a bifurcated proceeding, he was found to have suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) constituting strikes for purposes of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12). Defendant was also found to have served four prior prison terms within the meaning of former section 667.5, subdivision (b).
In January 2016, defendant was sentenced as a third strike offender to 25 years to life on count 3, plus 10 years for the prior serious felony convictions and two years for the prior prison terms. Concurrent sentences were imposed on counts 1, 5, and 6. Defendant filed an appeal.

On February 10, 2017, personnel from the Sonoma County Family, Youth and Children’s Services (Sonoma County Children Services) filed a petition alleging that S.K. and F.K. (the children) came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). (S.K., supra, E074453.) On March 6, 2017, mother agreed to submit to jurisdiction, and the court sustained the allegations in the petition, as amended, as to F.K. (the minor). (Ibid.) On April 14, 2017, the juvenile court issued a protective custody warrant for S.K. because mother was uncooperative in allowing the assessment of S.K.’s health and had placed her in the care of the maternal great-grandmother and step great-grandfather, who reportedly were physically abusive. (Ibid.) “Two of the great-grandmother’s daughters had reported that she was physically abusive to them and to a grandson.

A man who had been sexually harassing defendant’s girlfriend was shot to death. Defendant’s girlfriend later testified that defendant admitted being the shooter. A friend of defendant, who received a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony, likewise testified that defendant admitted being the shooter. When the police interviewed defendant, after giving him Miranda warnings, defendant admitted once again that he was the shooter; however, he claimed, initially, that the shooting was an accident and later, that it was in self-defense.
In a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189), with an enhancement for causing death by personally and intentionally discharging a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Defendant also pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. (§ 29800, subd. (a).)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gregory W. Pollack, Judge. Reversed.
Cooley, Steven M. Strauss and Erin Carey Trenda for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants Alex Roudi and Interwest Capital Corporation.
Koning Zollar, Blake M. Zollar and Neal R. Gibeault for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant Interwest Capital Corporation.
Williams Iagmin and Jon R. Williams; English & Gloven, Donald A. English and Christy I. Yee for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.
Plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants Alex Roudi and Interwest Capital Corporation (Interwest) appeal from an order awarding defendant, cross-complainant and respondent Reza Paydar $445,661 in contractual attorney fees and $14,473 in costs after Paydar successfully moved to vacate an arbitration award in favor of Roudi and Interwest.

Michael Charles, a convicted sex offender, served 120 days in local custody in San Diego County for parole violations after he disabled his GPS monitoring device, absconded from parole supervision in Shasta County, and moved without permission to San Diego County. When he was released, he failed to comply with orders to report for supervision in Shasta County and instead went to a parole office in San Diego County. There, he refused the parole agent’s orders to put on a GPS monitoring device and return to Shasta County. Although he admitted at his parole revocation hearing that he did “refuse,” he asserts substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that he willfully violated parole. We affirm the judgment.

Alvarez filed her first DVRO request in October 2020. She stated in her supporting declaration that Woolrich had been slapping her face and spanking her “with a strong, heavy hand,” to get her to obey. She described Woolrich as “heartless,” lacking in compassion, and as “a dangerous, bad person” who had “committed many abuses,” including manipulating, pressuring, and assaulting her. She mentioned a day when Woolrich called her over 20 times on the phone, causing her to trip and burn herself with hot tea. He entered her apartment three times without permission and stole her cash and personal property. Woolrich would not return the key to her car, and Alvarez was worried he would do something to it.
The parties appeared before Judge Enrique Camarena on October 29. Alvarez testified that everything in her declaration was true and had nothing to add. Woolrich denied stealing from Alvarez, calling her repeatedly, or spanking her. He also denied ever showing up at her house.