CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant challenges her conviction upon the sole ground that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission into evidence of statements she made during a police interview. Appellant argues that her statements were inadmissible because she was not given her rights pursuant to Miranda prior to the interview. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Appellant, John Jordan Ruiz, was born in 1996. In 2011, at the age of 14 years, eight months, Ruiz participated in the shootings of multiple individuals during two separate incidents. He was prosecuted as an adult and convicted on three counts of attempted premeditated murder, two counts of active participation in a criminal street gang, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. The trial court imposed an aggregate prison sentence of 120 years to life, but Ruiz will be eligible for parole during his 25th year of incarceration under the provisions of Penal Code section 3051 (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code).

Appellant/defendant David Figueroa shot and wounded Ivan Lopez multiple times after Figueroa’s associate, Oscar Garcia, argued and fought with Lopez. Figueroa and Garcia were charged with multiple felonies with gang enhancements. The People’s theory was that Figueroa and Garcia were members of the Norteño gang, and they committed the offenses for the benefit of that gang. The defense theory was that Garcia and Lopez argued about whether Lopez talked to Garcia’s girlfriend, and the incident was not gang-related.

Appellant/defendant Matthew Najera robbed a store clerk in Bakersfield and escaped. Several hours later, Officers Martin and Sims attempted to contact him because he matched the suspect’s description. The officers reported that defendant resisted arrest and fled. A short time later, Officer Messick and Mundhenke attempted to take defendant into custody. They reported that he resisted, but the officers were able to subdue and arrest him. The robbery victim later positively identified defendant.

Defendant Pedro Torres Hernandez was charged with assaulting J. Diederich, a peace officer, with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c) [count 1]); assaulting A. Pflugh, a peace officer, with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by means likely to produce great bodily injury (ibid. [count 2]); resisting arrest (§ 69 [count 3]); assaulting Sheila L. with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) [count 4]); and willfully inflicting corporal injury upon Sheila, his fiancée and cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a) [count 5]). The amended information further alleged (1) as to count 2, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); (2) as to all counts, he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm in 1995 and burglary in 2003, two qualifying “strike” offenses (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)); (3) as to counts 1 and 3 through 5,

Defendant Gerald Brent Harris appeals from his conviction after a jury trial on September 4, 2014, for the second degree murder of Dante Breeding (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189). The jury found true an allegation defendant personally discharged his firearm causing the death of Breeding (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for second degree murder and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the personal gun use enhancement.
On appeal, defendant contends the standard pattern instruction used to instruct the jury on heat of passion, CALCRIM No 570, precluded the jury from considering the third party conduct of defendant’s neighbors. Defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and imperfect self-defense. Defendant further contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude a racial epithet he directed toward the victim. Additionally, the parties fi

Petitioner A.B. (Mother) has a history with child protective services and a long history of abusing methamphetamines, resulting in the removal of her children, including her nine-year-old daughter, A.H., and 15-month-old son, R.B. Mother seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court denying her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), and setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Mother argues (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding she was resistant to treatment under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13); (2) the court abused its discretion in finding it would not be in A.H.’s best interest to grant her services; and (3) the court’s decision is contrary to the legislative intent of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13). Finding no merit to these claims, we deny Mother’s writ petition.

A jury found Jesus Rivera, Jr. guilty of four counts of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1-4) and 13 counts of exhibiting harmful matter to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a); counts 5-17). After striking the true findings on one of Rivera's two prior serious felony and prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (a), (c), (e)(2), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)), the trial court sentenced Rivera to prison for a term of 50 years, four months.

A jury convicted Alexis Lucatero of attempted murder of A.V. (Pen. Code,
§§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 1), assault of A.V. with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1); count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, the jury found true that Lucatero committed the felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); and he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to 21 years in state prison.
Lucatero contends that the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to sever counts 1 and 2 from count 3, thus violating his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process. He also contends we must reverse his attempted murder and assault convictions because they are based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice who was granted immunity. We affirm the judgment.

After a court trial, the court found Donald Lee Reeves III guilty of murdering two homeless men, Bobby Johnson and David Hamilton (counts 1 & 3); robbing Johnson, Hamilton, and Roberic Brooks (counts 2, 4, & 5); assaulting Brooks and Hamilton by means likely to produce great bodily injury (counts 6 & 7); and possession of methamphetamine (count 9). As to each murder, the trial court found true special circumstance allegations of multiple murder and robbery-murder. The court also found true special circumstance allegations that during the commission of counts 2, 5, 6, and 7, Reeves personally inflicted great bodily injury on his victims. The trial court sentenced Reeves to two consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) on counts 1 and 3, plus a concurrent six-year term on count 5 and 180 days on count 9. The trial court stayed the remaining prison terms and enhancements under Penal Code section 654.

After a court trial, the court found Donald Lee Reeves III guilty of murdering two homeless men, Bobby Johnson and David Hamilton (counts 1 & 3); robbing Johnson, Hamilton, and Roberic Brooks (counts 2, 4, & 5); assaulting Brooks and Hamilton by means likely to produce great bodily injury (counts 6 & 7); and possession of methamphetamine (count 9). As to each murder, the trial court found true special circumstance allegations of multiple murder and robbery-murder. The court also found true special circumstance allegations that during the commission of counts 2, 5, 6, and 7, Reeves personally inflicted great bodily injury on his victims. The trial court sentenced Reeves to two consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) on counts 1 and 3, plus a concurrent six-year term on count 5 and 180 days on count 9. The trial court stayed the remaining prison terms and enhancements under Penal Code section 654.

A jury convicted Domingos Jose Oliveira of one count of solicitation of murder (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (b)) and one count of making a criminal threat (§ 422). With regard to the criminal threat, the jury found true the allegation that Oliveira committed a hate crime. (§ 422.75, subd. (a).)
On appeal, Oliveira presents two arguments—both limited to the criminal threat count. First, he contends that substantial evidence does not support the conviction. Second, he contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threat. Because Oliveira did not meet his burden of establishing reversible error, we will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Granval Gail Harrison-Hunter, Jr., has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief, raising various issues about his plea, and we requested and received supplemental briefing on the application of Senate Bill No. 620, if any, to defendant’s case.
Because the lack of a certificate of probable cause (CPC) precludes our review of defendant’s stipulated sentence as well as his other claims, and finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Kisha Donnette Sanders pleaded no contest to forgery related to an item exceeding $950 (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to 365 days in county jail followed by a period of mandatory supervision. Among other terms and conditions of mandatory supervision, defendant was required to maintain her residence as approved by the probation officer and to not change her residence without the prior written approval of the probation officer; she was also required to refrain from residing in a living environment that she knew had not been approved by her probation officer as a clean and sober living environment. The court further ordered that defendant report to her probation officer, no later than the next working day, any arrests or any contacts with or incidents involving any peace officer.