CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Martin P. Montoya and his small business, Advanced Exteriors, Inc. (sometimes together, Plaintiff) filed an action against a former client, defendant and respondent Mike Belk (Defendant), seeking damages on a number of theories, based on Defendant's published criticisms of the work that Plaintiff had performed at Defendant's property. In response, Defendant brought a motion to strike the amended pleading, pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, [strategic lawsuit against public participation]; Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 57.) The motion was granted.

A jury found defendant Ismael Machado Sepulveda guilty of lewd acts against B.Z., a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a), counts 1-6), and against P.M., also a child under the age of 14 (id., counts 7-9). The jury found true the multiple victim allegation on each count (§ 667.61, subds. (b)(c) & (e)) and the "substantial sexual conduct" allegation on count 9 (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)). Finally, the jury also found defendant's prosecution on counts 7-9 was timely commenced (former § 801.1, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life.

A jury convicted Mansfield Taylor of two counts of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69; counts 3, 4); one count of battery by gassing (§ 243.9, subd. (a); count 1) and one count of misdemeanor resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 5). Taylor admitted three serious/violent felony prior convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) [strike priors]). Taylor was sentenced to a determinate term of seven years four months in prison. In calculating Taylor's sentence, the court imposed a two-year concurrent term for count 4 (§ 69).

The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Credit Card Act) prohibits merchants from requesting and recording "personal identification information" as a condition of completing a credit card transaction. (Civ. Code, § 1747.08, subd. (a)(2).) In 2011, Andrew R. Dremak, Donna Motta, and Anne Nicolucci each brought suit under the Credit Card Act alleging retailer Urban Outfitters, Inc. (Urban) and its wholly owned subsidiary Anthropologie, Inc. (Anthropologie) violated the law by asking customers to provide their ZIP codes at check out. The plaintiffs' cases were consolidated and a class of similarly situated consumers was eventually certified. After the defendants' unsuccessful motions for summary judgment and to decertify the class, the court conducted a bench trial of the plaintiffs' claims. The court dismissed their claim against Anthropologie and found they had not met their burden to prove that a reasonable consumer would believe that Urban required a ZIP code as a

Based on his conviction by jury for numerous counts, defendant Richard Anthony Fuentez again appeals. He contends his case must be remanded for resentencing in light of an amendment to the firearm enhancement statute under which he was sentenced. (Pen. Code, § 12022.53.) The People properly concede the amendment operates retroactively on cases like Fuentez's. But they also argue that remand would serve no purpose. We disagree on the latter point. Although the record suggests it is unlikely the trial court will reduce Fuentez's sentence, it does not clearly show that the court will not. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

Appointed counsel for defendant Austin Riley Norris has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Appointed counsel for defendant Elizabeth Roberta Simmons has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Bobby Lee Foster 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.) We will modify the judgment to conform to the plea and affirm the judgment as modified.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kaja Sharlese Davis 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joel Matthew Gagnon has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Daina Stratford Cullen appeals from a judgment denying her Penal Code section 1026.2 restoration of sanity petition. Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting case-specific hearsay, in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). Defendant further contends she received ineffective assistance of counsel. We will affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Darnell Leshawn White of first degree murder, attempted murder, first degree robbery, and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of life without the possibility of parole and a determinate term of 19 years.
Defendant now contends the trial court violated his right to a fair trial by interfering with his counsel’s argument and by requiring his counsel to describe the reasonable doubt requirement in a way that shifted and misrepresented the burden of proof. Finding no merit in defendant’s contentions, we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Marvin Warren appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.18 petition for resentencing on his convictions for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle and receiving a stolen vehicle. He contends the trial court erred in finding the convictions ineligible for resentencing.
After the first round of briefing was completed in this case, we asked the parties to file supplemental letter briefs addressing what effect the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page) has on the disposition of this case.
We will affirm the trial court's order without prejudice to defendant filing a new petition supplying proof of eligibility for resentencing.

Defendant Patrick James Twiford stole merchandise from a store. After detaining him, authorities found a 14-inch piece of rebar in his backpack. The rebar had been modified to have a handle. A jury found defendant guilty of possessing a deadly weapon, specifically a billy club, and he pleaded no contest to petty theft. On appeal, he contends: (1) insufficient evidence supports his conviction of possessing a billy club; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the crime’s elements during her argument; (3) the statute making it unlawful to possess a billy club violates the Second Amendment facially and as applied; and (4) an enhancement imposed on a felony prison prior must be stricken as it was imposed on a conviction that had been reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. Except to strike the prison prior, we affirm the judgment.