CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Matthew Alexander Murray was convicted by jury trial of attempted escape from a county jail by force. On appeal, he contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and (2) the trial court erroneously imposed duplicate fees. We direct the trial court to reduce the fees and amend the minute order and abstract of judgment. We affirm the judgment as modified.

On September 24, 2015, the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant with conspiracy to possess a controlled substance for sale (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1); count 1), possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 2), bringing a controlled substance into a prison (§ 4573; count 3), and possession of a controlled substance in a prison (§ 4573.6; count 4). The information further alleged defendant had suffered 18 prior felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
On June 13, 2016, defendant filed a Pitchess motion for discovery of Correctional Officer Carole Estioco-Fountain’s personnel records. The trial court denied the motion.
On September 9, 2016, a jury found defendant guilty on counts 1 through 3. Count 4 was deemed a lesser included offense of count 3. The trial court found the prior conviction allegations true.
On October 18, 2016, the tri

Defendant Keenan Antwaun Wilburn was convicted of Penal Code violations at the conclusion of a jury trial as follows: two counts of attempted murder against Francisco A. and Cassandra R. (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2), two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 3 & 8) carrying a loaded firearm as an active member of a criminal street gang (§ 25850, subd. (c)(3); count 4), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 5); unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. The jury found true the allegations that count 1 was willful and deliberate within the meaning of section 189, but found this same allegation not true in count 2. The jury found true the allegations in counts 1 and 2 that defendant intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury to one other than an accomplice (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). In counts 3 and 8, the jury found true allegations defendant committed those offenses while p

Defendant Esteven Rodriguez was convicted at the conclusion of a jury trial on March 19, 2015, of the first degree murder of Drakkar Lewis (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), assault on Celeste M. with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 3), and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 4). The jury found true allegations in count 1 that defendant personally used a firearm causing the victim’s death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and in count 2 that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true enhancements in counts 1 and 2 that defendant committed those offenses for the benefit or at the direction of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)).

Defendant and appellant, Paul Robert Campos, appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, added by the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47). Defendant sought to reduce his felony conviction for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) to a misdemeanor. But defendant’s offense, no contest plea, and sentencing occurred well after the effective date of Proposition 47. The new misdemeanor penalty provisions of Proposition 47 were available to defendant at the time he pled no contest to a felony violation. Penal Code section 1170.18 does not permit a defendant in this situation—whose offense occurred after the effective date of Proposition 47—to belatedly challenge his plea and sentence. We therefore affirm the order denying his petition for resentencing.

A jury found defendant and appellant, Jacob Paul Winters, guilty as charged of the first degree felony murder of Hector Perez. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) The jury also found a robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation true (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), but found not true an allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for the murder, the mandatory sentence based on the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).)

A jury found defendant and appellant, Francisco Gabriel Olmos, guilty as charged in 13 counts of sex offenses against his three nieces, twin girls, I.L. and K.L., and their cousin, W.T. The jury also found two “One Strike” law allegations true. Defendant was sentenced to six consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole on counts 1 through 6, plus 35 years eight months to life on counts 7 through 13.
In counts 1 through 6, defendant was convicted of forcibly sexually penetrating K.L., a minor age 14 or older. (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(C).) Defendant claims the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on three lesser included offenses in counts 1 through 6: (1) nonforcible sexual penetration of a minor (§ 289, subd. (h)); (2) assault with intent to commit sexual penetration (§§ 220, subd. (a)(2), 289); and (3) sexual battery (§ 243.4, subds. (a), (d), (e)(1)).

Defendant and appellant Sean Patrick Mahoney appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 to have his felony conviction for driving or taking a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), reduced to a misdemeanor. We affirm the order without prejudice to filing a new petition pursuant to People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page).

Cross-defendant and respondent Dianne Simpson (Simpson) and cross-complainant and appellant Delores Ramirez (Ramirez) were co-owners of a salon known as the 9th Street Hair Station, Inc. (the Salon), in Upland. Simpson and Ramirez each own 50 percent of the Salon. The Salon is a California corporation. Simpson, in her individual capacity and derivatively on behalf of the Salon, sued Ramirez. Simpson’s lawsuit involved allegations of Ramirez misappropriating approximately $1,055.74 of the Salon’s money.

This is an appeal of an order revoking probation and judgments in two cases in which appellant Alexander Robert Jacome pled guilty. During the pendency of the cases involved in this appeal, criminal proceedings were twice suspended due to doubts about Jacome' s mental competency. However, after examinations, Jacome was determined to be competent, and criminal proceedings were reinstated. On May 10, 2017, Jacome was sentenced on all three cases.

Kimberly A. Woolley (Wife) filed the underlying dissolution of marriage action against Elliott P. Woolley (Husband) in October 1992. In November 1997, the family court filed, and the clerk of the court gave notice of entry of, a status-only judgment (Judgment), which dissolved the parties' marriage and reserved jurisdiction over all other issues. Almost 19 years later in August 2016, Husband filed an amended request for an order either (1) dismissing the dissolution action for Wife's failure to prosecute, or (2) vacating the 1997 Judgment and three sets of findings and orders after hearings, filed in April 2014, June 2014, and March 2015.

A jury convicted Robert Jellinek of four counts of perjury (counts 1, 3-5; Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a)) and one count of preparing a false document for a fraudulent purpose (count 2, § 134). Jellinek was granted probation. Jellinek appeals contending the statute of limitations on counts 1 through 4 had expired prior to filing the complaint and information. He argues, for the first time on appeal that the prosecution's failure to plead any basis for tolling of the statute of limitations should result in dismissal of the four counts. In the alternative he argues we should remand the case for a jury trial on the question of whether the statute of limitations expired before charges were filed.
Based on our review of the record we can determine that the criminal acts Jellinek committed were not discovered until October 2013, thus all of the convictions on the challenged counts are proper.

William Dickerson and Paradiso in Terra LLC (Paradiso, and collectively, Plaintiffs) sued general contractor Perry & Papenhausen, Inc. (P&P), P&P principals Frederick Perry, Jr., James Papenhausen, James Papenhausen II, and Papenhausen Construction (Defendants), as well as their subcontractors, based on the allegedly defective construction of Plaintiffs' home. Pertinent here, Dickerson claimed breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and Plaintiffs jointly alleged negligence. Plaintiffs settled with the subcontractors. Defendants filed a cross-complaint, which included a breach of contract claim against Dickerson for failure to make required payments.

D. R., mother of the minor, G. S., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and adopting a permanent plan of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26 & 395.) Mother contends the court erred in failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) In particular, she contends she participated in visitation to the extent she was permitted by her incarceration and the court’s order, and she maintained a positive bond with the minor despite her incarceration. Finding the claim lacks merit, we affirm.