CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner Andrew Arrue (defendant) was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in 2006, after a jury convicted him of first degree murder with a felony-murder special-circumstance finding (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subds. (a)(17), (d)). Years later, the Supreme Court decided People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks), which explains when section 190.2 authorizes a special circumstance finding for a felony murder defendant convicted as an aider and abettor. In 2017, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing the jury’s special circumstances finding must be vacated because it could have been based on either of two alternate theories, only one of which is valid under Banks. We agree.

Defendant and appellant Derrick W. Bridges appeals from an order revoking parole after a contested hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1237. We affirm the order.

Hiram Christophe Kelly appeals from a judgment entered following his conviction by a jury on four counts of assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm.

Jaime Campos is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In 2011 he pleaded no contest to one count of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted an enhancement allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon a victim (§ 12022.7). The trial court sentenced him to five years in state prison. Upon his release in 2016, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained him and initiated deportation proceedings. Campos filed a motion in the superior court to vacate his conviction under section 1473.7 on the ground that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to advise him that his guilty plea would subject him to deportation. The court denied the motion and Campos appealed. We affirm.

In 2000, defendant and appellant Holly Hawk purchased an undeveloped parcel of land in northern Los Angeles County through which a dirt road known as Lost Valley Ranch Road (LVRR) passes. LVRR is not a public road, but the residents of the area have traveled on it across one another’s properties for years. For many nearby landowners, the route on LVRR through Hawk’s property is the only route to and from their properties. These landowners filed suit to obtain an easement on LVRR across Hawk’s land. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the landowners of the dependent properties (plaintiffs and respondents), finding that they were entitled to an equitable easement. In addition, the trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of Guyla Clayton and David and Janice Gantenbein (the Claytons and Gantenbeins), whose driveways pass across Hawk’s property on their way to connecting to LVRR.

Appellants and defendants Eric Tyrone Carter, Rasheen Childs, and Bryant S. Moore committed a string of armed robberies of stores and restaurants in December 2013 and January 2014. Childs was involved in all of the robberies, and in most cases, he was the one who drew a handgun and demanded money from the cashier. Moore aided Childs in several robberies between December 11 and December 25, including one on December 22 in which Childs shot and killed a store clerk who attempted to flee. Thereafter Carter, not Moore, aided Childs in several additional robberies between December 27 and January 2. The defendants challenge several aspects of their convictions.
We reverse Moore’s sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP) because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of a special circumstance with respect to Moore’s involvement in the murder of Garcia.

Angelo M. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him on probation after he pleaded no contest to one felony count of conspiracy to commit misdemeanor battery, two misdemeanor counts of petty theft, and one misdemeanor count of receiving stolen property. On appeal, he contends that the conspiracy count should be reduced to a misdemeanor, his “conviction and sentence” for that count constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and the specification of a maximum term of confinement in the dispositional order must be stricken. We accept the Attorney General’s concession that the maximum term of confinement must be stricken, but we otherwise affirm.

Defendant Jose Melara appeals from a judgment of conviction of 13 counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon three children under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), five counts of intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a)), and three counts of oral copulation or penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to the maximum term of 202 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by (a) allowing the prosecution’s expert witness to testify regarding “statistical” evidence and preventing his own expert from testifying on the same subject and (b) relying on “nonexistent” facts when imposing his sentence. Alternatively, defendant contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecution’s expert testimony and to the claimed lack of factual basis for the trial court’s sentencing choices. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury found defendant Juan Carlos Mendez guilty on four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child who was under 14 and at least 10 years younger than defendant (former Pen. Code, § 269, added by Stats. 1994, 1st Ex. Sess. 1993, ch. 48, § 1). The trial court imposed four consecutive terms of 15 years to life.

The trial court found that defendant Jarold Thomas Johnston (Defendant) was in violation of parole, revoked and reinstated his parole, and ordered him to serve 120 days in jail with 120 days of credit for time served. Defendant appealed from the order revoking and reinstating parole. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identified issues to assist us in conducting our independent review. Defendant was granted 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not filed a supplemental brief.
We have reviewed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and have examined the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders. Counsel has suggested three issues to assist us in our review. None has merit. We therefore affirm.

Defendant Robert Aguilar, Jr., appeals from the denial of his special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; all further statutory references are to this code) the complaint of plaintiff Rosario Antoinette Perez-Ritchie. He argues the court erred in finding the claims did not arise from protected activity. We disagree and affirm.

An information charged Jesse Degante with attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count 1) by use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and brandishing a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); count 3). The information alleged defendant had two prior strikes under the “Three Strikes law” (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A)), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)(A)), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
A jury convicted defendant of attempted robbery and brandishing a deadly weapon, and found true the allegation defendant used a deadly weapon to commit attempted robbery. Count 2 was dismissed following a mistrial. The court found true all prior conviction allegations and sentenced defendant to 15 years.

Plaintiff Rafael Rodriguez supplied grapes to defendant Empire Grape Company. After a dispute arose over the terms of their agreement, Rodriguez sued Empire and its owner, defendant Peterangelo Vallis, for breach of contract and fraud. A jury returned a defense verdict on breach of contract but awarded compensatory damages of $204,463.30 against Empire for fraud, and found that Empire and Vallis both acted with fraud, oppression or malice. After a bench trial, the court awarded $50,000 in punitive damages against Empire and Vallis.
Empire and Vallis now argue that the compensatory and punitive awards were unsupported by sufficient evidence, and the punitive award was based on errors of law. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

A custodial parent filed a motion to enforce child support arrearages from 2003 through 2012. The trial court denied the motion, stating there was neither legal nor factual support for the requested relief. Among other things, the court stated the custodial parent failed to (1) identify the specific underlying orders giving rise to the alleged arrears, and (2) provide documentation of amounts actually paid and the specific amounts of arrears claimed.