CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Ernesto Jaimes-Ramos appeals from a judgment of conviction for felony assault and misdemeanor domestic battery. He argues his domestic battery conviction must be reversed because the trial court improperly admitted a hearsay statement, and that its admission also violated his federal constitutional right to confront witnesses under Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford). Defendant further contends the trial court should have stayed his sentence for this domestic battery conviction under Penal Code section 654. We disagree that the trial court erred in admitting the statement, but agree it should have stayed his sentence. We affirm the judgment as modified to stay this sentence.

Plaintiff Paula J. Novak appeals defense summary judgments in her wrongful death action against a tire manufacturer, Continental Tire North America (Continental), and an auto mechanic, Chi Tai (collectively defendants). Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to warn about the dangers of rubber degradation in old tires, which led to a tire blowout in 2005 that injured her father. Plaintiff further alleges that those injuries impaired his mobility, necessitated his use of a motorized scooter with limited maneuverability, and led to his death in 2011 after his scooter was struck by a vehicle in a crosswalk. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to establish a causal link between defendants’ conduct alleged to have caused one traffic accident and decedent’s death years later following a separate traffic accident. We shall affirm the defense judgments.

At the conclusion of a bench trial, defendant Evan Fleischer McCutchin was found guilty of (1) making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)); (2) attempting to make a criminal threat against a different person (id., §§ 422, subd. (a)(4), 664); and
(3) willfully disobeying a court order (id., § 166, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and admitted defendant to probation upon specified conditions. Defendant contends that none of his convictions are supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court abused its discretion in not reducing his threat convictions to misdemeanors. We reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the order of probation.

Isaiah B. was declared a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after it found he committed two counts of witness intimidation (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2)). Isaiah appeals, asserting the juvenile court (1) violated his due process rights and the separation of powers doctrine by amending the petition, on its own motion, at the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing; (2) made findings unsupported by substantial evidence; (3) construed the statute to violate the First Amendment; (4) improperly allowed the People to fragment a single offense into two counts; (5) failed to designate his “wobbler” offenses as either misdemeanors or felonies; and (6) and imposed a vague and overbroad probation condition. We affirm.

Defendant was charged by information with criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), felony attempted dissuading (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), and attempted possession of a firearm by a felon (§§ 664, 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and it was further alleged that he had suffered a prior strike and serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12). In 2014, defendant had been convicted of criminal threats for threatening to kill his neighbors.
In October 2016, defendant approached a group of developmentally disabled children at a bus stop and began “shouting that someone had stolen his check.” Defendant shoved an adult who was with the children. He grabbed one child, shoved him while holding onto “his costume,” and then punched him in the middle of his back. Finally, defendant approached a second child and punched him in the back of head. The second child fell to the ground, hit his head, and was knocked unconscious.

Defendant John Lawrence Wardzala appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. The trial court found that defendant was not entitled to resentencing, because he was serving a life sentence under the “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the trial court erred and the matter should be remanded for the trial court to consider the merits of his resentencing petition. We agree and reverse the order.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant Ryan Paul Chouinard on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was invited to express his own objections to the proceedings, but did not.

Appellant minor was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. His wardship resulted from a negotiated disposition of a sustained petition alleging – inter alia – auto theft and firearm possession along with a pending case and a series of probation violations.
He appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised this court he could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case and two points counsel had considered as possibly supporting an appeal: both pertained to the propriety of gang testimony. Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf, but no brief was filed.

Defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 269, subds. (a)(5); counts 1 & 2 [sexual penetration], (a)(1); counts 3 & 4 [rape]), and one count of forcible lewd act on a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 5). Count 5 was charged as sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy. The jury found it to be true that defendant inflicted great bodily harm pursuant to count 5.
The court sentenced defendant to state prison for life without the possibility of parole on count 5. (See § 667.61, subd. (j)(1).) As to all remaining counts, the court imposed consecutive prison terms of 15 years to life, for a total sentence of life without the possibility of parole, plus consecutive 60 years to life.
On appeal, defendant challenges an evidentiary ruling, the voir dire process, and a jury instruction; he also asserts prosecutorial misconduct. We conclude the trial court was free of prejudicial error and affirm the judgmen

Moisey Fridman and Rosa Fridman (the Fridmans) filed a claim for breach of contract against their homeowners association, Beach Crest Villas Homeowners Association (Beach Crest), based on Beach Crest’s improper fines for an air conditioning unit. An award of attorney fees to the Fridmans and against Beach Crest was reduced to a judgment in the Fridmans’ favor. More than 11 years have passed since the Fridmans first filed their lawsuit, and the judgment remains unsatisfied due to Beach Crest’s dilatory behavior.
The Fridmans filed a petition for a writ of mandate to compel Beach Crest to levy an assessment on the homeowners other than the Fridmans to pay the judgment. As explained in a prior unpublished opinion, a special assessment is the only way for Beach Crest to satisfy the judgment. The trial court denied the petition. The Fridmans no longer have a legal or equitable interest in the judgment, having assigned it to their attorneys of record, Darling & Risbrough.

We affirmed a judgment against petitioner Darrell Edward Adams but remanded to the trial court for resentencing as a result of two sentencing errors. Following the issuance of the remittitur, the trial court held a hearing and addressed the problems identified in the appellate opinion. However, petitioner’s presence was not secured at the resentencing hearing. The absence of petitioner at his resentencing hearing represents constitutional error and the Attorney General has not demonstrated that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore order another resentencing hearing, this time with petitioner present.

This is an appeal by three minor children named in this case from an order by the juvenile court to deny reunification services to their father, Jose R. (father), after the juvenile court found father had committed multiple acts of sexual abuse against the minors’ older sister. We affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Uriel Salazar pled no contest to one count of violating Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (a) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 16 years in prison and dismissal of another charge. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Salazar appealed. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.

On February 27, 2015, a jury convicted appellant Charlette Corine Novak of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)/count 1), possession for sale of methamphetamine (§ 11378/count 2) and evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)/count 3). In a separate proceeding, the court found true three prior conviction enhancements (§ 11370.2).
On November 15, 2016, Novak filed an opening appellate brief contending: (1) the penalty assessments on the lab fees the court imposed were unauthorized; (2) Novak’s abstract of judgment does not memorialize a stayed term the court imposed; (3) Novak’s abstract of judgment contains a drug program fee that was not imposed; (4) the AIDS education program fee the court imposed was unauthorized; and (5) the court abused its discretion when it refused to order the preparation of a current probation report.