CA Unpub Decisions

Christian Calderon and Daniel Ernesto Cordero appeal from the judgments entered on their convictions for first and second degree murder, respectively, and five firearm crimes, with firearm and gang enhancements, contending insufficient evidence supported the gang enhancements and Calderon’s conviction for first degree murder, and the trial court made instructional and sentencing errors. We conclude the trial court erred in imposing certain gang enhancements, but otherwise affirm. We remand the matter for resentencing.

Defendant and appellant Dominick Blair Roberson appeals his convictions for multiple counts of second degree robbery and attempted robbery. He raises a variety of claims of error related to the prosecution’s evidence that he wore eyeglasses at trial in an attempt to change his appearance. He further contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the standard of proof; the trial court erred by admitting a DNA expert’s testimony; and the trial court’s conduct impermissibly created the impression it was aligned with the prosecution, thereby violating his due process rights to a fair trial. Discerning no prejudicial error, we affirm.

This case involves the murder of a mentally challenged, small in stature, 19-year old young man. The victim made the fatal mistake of wearing the wrong color shirt and shoes in an area frequented by a street gang. Although the trial court committed error in allowing the investigating officer to testify to several matters that were within the purview of the jury and to explain the significance of certain evidence, we conclude the errors were

Defendant Julio Cesar Rocha appeals his convictions for two counts of resisting arrest and one count of assault. Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it failed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 to stay the sentence for one of the resisting arrest convictions. We affirm because defendant had different intents when resisting arrest and committing the assault. Per defendant’s request we have independently reviewed the Pitchess hearing and find no error.

Plaintiff and appellant Janus Friis filed an action against defendant and respondent Maria Louise Joensen seeking the return of an engagement ring and other gifts given in contemplation of marriage. The trial court granted Joensen’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, finding the matter to be more appropriately heard in Denmark. Subsequently, the trial court denied Friis’s motion to vacate the dismissal order on the basis that it was procured through extrinsic fraud. Friis challenges both rulings.

Karieft McDonald appeals from his judgment of conviction of one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) McDonald raises the following arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence that McDonald had a prior conviction involving domestic violence; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder. We affirm.

In this procedurally tangled case, defendant, cross-complainant and appellant Patrick Flannery (Flannery) contends the trial court erred in entering an amended judgment awarding his former nonmarital partner, Andrea Murray (Murray), $1,225,000 of the settlement proceeds from a lawsuit arising out of the destruction by fire of a ranch jointly owned by Flannery and Murray. We conclude that Murray’s entitlement to the settlement funds has already been adjudicated in a separate action, in which a final judgment has been entered and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and thus Flannery’s claim is barred by res judicata. We therefore affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court declared Juan R. a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, after finding Juan committed an assault with a deadly weapon, a knife (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The court made an oral finding that the offense was a felony, and ordered Juan to be suitably placed with a maximum period of confinement of four years two months, subject to specified probation conditions.
Juan contends the evidence is insufficient to establish he did not act in self-defense. Juan also contends the juvenile court failed to exercise its discretion to determine whether the offense should be treated as a felony or a misdemeanor. Finally, he claims the probation conditions in the minute order do not reflect the juvenile court’s oral pronouncement. We order the juvenile court to correct the minute order to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of the probation conditions. As modified, we affirm.

Kay Link Corporation, doing business as Wireless Vision, and Zehra Ali (together plaintiffs) appeal from the judgment entered on an order of nonsuit that the trial court granted after plaintiffs gave their opening statement. Plaintiffs contend they stated viable claims for public and private nuisance against defendants, Jerome Raphael Inc. and DPS Ventures, Inc., both doing business as Animal Care Clinic of Bellflower, and otherwise the procedure by which the trial court granted nonsuit denied them due process. We affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant Joseph Salazar of the second degree murder of Sergio Guzman, and found true that he intentionally discharged a firearm causing death and that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d), & 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) He was 16 years old at the time of the crime, but 22 years old at the time of trial and sentencing. The trial court sentenced him to 40 years to life in state prison. He appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in: (1) admitting two recordings, made while appellant was in custody awaiting trial, in which he expressed a willingness to plead guilty to a determinate term to avoid a life sentence; (2) conditioning the admissibility of excluding expert testimony on why innocent defendants consider pleading guilty on appellant taking the stand; and (3) refusing to instruct the jury on third-party culpability.

Defendant Richard Edward Ray was convicted of 17 sex crimes committed against three children over the course of 18 years. He contends the court lacked jurisdiction over counts 3–8 and 16–17 because those offenses occurred in Nevada—and even if California had jurisdiction, Los Angeles was not the proper venue; his conviction for count 12 violates Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (c), which prohibits dual convictions for continuous sexual abuse and another sex offense involving the same victim and the same time period; and the multiple-victim findings and several of his indeterminate sentences violate the ex post facto clause.

Monica Lee Copeland petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to Douglas Huberman. After a mediation, they entered into a settlement agreement, on which the family court entered judgment. Huberman now contends that the judgment must be reversed because it was based on a confidential and inadmissible mediation agreement and because the parties failed to comply with the Family Code’s mandatory disclosure requirements. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Larene Eleanor Austin appealed from the judgment entered following her conviction by jury for first degree murder, with personal use of a firearm, personal and intentional discharge of a firearm, and personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury and death. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b) – (d).) Her sole contention on appeal was that the trial court erroneously denied her multiple Wheeler/Batson motions alleging the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges to prospective jurors based on their race or ethnicity. In an opinion filed on November 9, 2017, we affirmed her conviction.

Appellant A.S. is the maternal grandfather (Grandfather), and appellant D.G. is the maternal grandmother (Grandmother), of M.L. They have separately appealed from the same juvenile court order terminating their de facto parent status. We consider the appeals together, and issue a single opinion.