CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal from judgment after the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication in favor of defendant Safeway, Inc. (hereinafter, Safeway) and against plaintiff R.A.T. Oil, Inc. (hereinafter, plaintiff) in a case brought under California’s Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17000 et seq.) and Cartwright Act (§ 16700 et seq.). The judgment followed the trial court’s rejection of plaintiff’s claims that Safeway unlawfully and unfairly engaged in below-cost and loss leader sales and conspired with an unnamed party, Chevron USA, Inc., to, among other things, monopolize and fix prices in the retail fuel market located in the City of Morgan Hill. For reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Appellant J.M. seeks review of a juvenile court order finding him competent to proceed on eight petitions filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 between March 27 and July 7, 2017. Petitions A through E alleged theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle between March 23 and May 31, 2017 (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); petition A also alleged possession of burglar tools (Pen. Code, § 466, a misdemeanor). Petition F alleged three counts of attempted first degree burglary and two counts of first degree burglary, all taking place between April 27 and April 28, 2017 (id. §§ 664, 459 460 subd. (a)). Petition G contained two counts of theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (an additional count of first degree burglary was dismissed) on April 8 and April 27, 2017 (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); and Petition H alleged theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle and hit and run driving causing property damage on March 14, 2017 (Veh. Code, §§ 10851, subd. (a), 20002, subd

Defendant William Joseph Garrett appeals the trial court’s denial of his petitions for recall and resentencing under Proposition 47. Defendant filed a total of six petitions under Penal Code section 1170.18 for six prior convictions of burglary (§ 459), arguing his crimes would have each been considered misdemeanor shoplifting as set forth under section 459.5, which was enacted by Proposition 47, if that statute had been in effect at the time of his offenses. On appeal, he challenges the denial of two of his petitions and insists the trial court should have held hearings to determine his eligibility for relief since he completed the forms provided by Santa Clara County Superior Court. For the reasons set forth below, we find the trial court did not err when it summarily denied the Proposition 47 petitions, because defendant failed to state prima facie cases for relief. We affirm the orders.

A jury convicted defendant Andrew Butler of first degree murder of his girlfriend, Kendra Gonzales, and found true the allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused her death. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 50 years to life: 25 years to life for the murder and 25 years to life on the firearm enhancement. On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation and deliberation, alleges witness misconduct, and raises a claim of cumulative error.

Defendant Misael Ramirez pleaded no contest to one count of possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and one count of transporting or selling cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted allegations that he possessed 57 grams or more of a substance containing at least five grams of cocaine or cocaine base (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years, with one year in county jail.

In 2013, defendant Daniel Patrick Tanner pleaded no contest to two counts of taking or driving a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), one count of reckless driving while attempting to evade a peace officer (id., § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and one count of concealing stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, former subd. (a)). He also admitted that he had served one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison.
In early 2015, the trial court granted a petition by defendant pursuant to section 1170.18, which was enacted as part of Proposition 47, to have his felony conviction for concealing stolen property resentenced as a misdemeanor. Defendant was resentenced to three years four months in prison.

The juvenile court declared S.B. (minor) a ward of the juvenile court after finding he committed two counts of felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 1 & 2) and two counts of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594(a), (b)(2)(A); counts 3 & 4). On appeal, minor contends the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss counts 1, 2, and 3 because there was insufficient evidence to support them. He also asserts the court abused its discretion in refusing to reduce his felony convictions in counts 1 and 2 to misdemeanors. We disagree and affirm.

A jury convicted Jaime Nelson Reyes of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a) [count 1]; all statutory citations are to the Penal Code), assault with a deadly weapon or instrument (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) [count 2]), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a) [count 3]), and disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4) [counts 6 and 7]). The jury found he personally used or discharged a firearm in committing several of the offenses. (See §§ 12022.5, 12022.53.) Reyes contends there is insufficient evidence he committed assault with a deadly weapon or instrument, and one of his misdemeanor convictions violated the statute of limitations. We accept the Attorney General’s concession the conviction for disobeying a court order (count 6) committed in October 2013 violated the statute of limitations. We also conclude insufficient evidence supports the assault with a deadly weapon conviction, and therefore modify the conviction to simple assault. We will rema

Kathleen A. Kenealy, Acting Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On December 30, 2003, the People filed a petition in the superior court to commit Joseph Christner as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) The first trial took place in September 2014, and resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable to agree on a finding. The second trial was held from September 30, 2015 to October 15, 2015, and resulted in the jury finding defendant qualified as an SVP. The trial court ordered defendant committed indefinitely pursuant to section 6604.

This appeal arises out of a juvenile dependency action. The subjects of the action are minors, L.C. (now 14 years old), M.B., (now 13 years old), S.B. (now 12 years old), and A.B. (now six years old) (collectively, the children). Appellant in this matter is the children’s mother, A.B. (mother). The children have also appealed; their appeal is pending separately (case No. F075898). The children’s father, Jeremy B. (father), is a party to the children’s appeal.
Mother contends on appeal is that the juvenile court erred by sua sponte amending the dependency petition, prejudicing her in the process. We find no error and affirm.

Minor Ernesto R. was the subject of three juvenile wardship petitions pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The petitions were filed on May 18, 2016, November 1, 2016, and April 3, 2017, and each was sustained thereafter. He appeals from the dispositional order assigning his predisposition custody credits. We reverse that dispositional order and remand.

Appellant Anthony Chacon appeals from his sentence following a remand for resentencing by this court.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In June 2014, a jury convicted appellant as follows: first degree drive-by murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189/count 1); attempted murder (§§ 187, 664/count 2); and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246/count 3).
As to count 1, the jury found that appellant committed the murder by means of a drive-by shooting and to further the activities of a criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subds. (a)(21) & (22)); that appellant personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); that appellant inflicted great bodily injury or death by shooting a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 12022.55); and that the murder was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang as set fo

A jury convicted appellant Richard Bentancourt of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1)). In a separate proceeding, the court found true a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and allegations that Bentancourt had a prior conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b) (i)). On January 5, 2017, the trial court stayed the prior prison term enhancement and sentenced Bentancourt to a lower term of 32 months.
On appeal, Bentancourt contends: (1) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence that his conduct violated prison rules; and (2) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

Appellant Anthony Robert Winstead’s challenge to his conviction is based solely upon a single legal issue. For the reasons set forth below, the conviction is affirmed.