CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Jesus Alfonso Ruelas of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused the death of Chanel Munoz (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), & (d)) and an allegation that he committed the murder for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(5)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the murder with a consecutive indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) allegation.

A jury convicted defendants Christian DeAnda and Eraca Craig of multiple crimes related to the mistreatment of their children. The trial court sentenced DeAnda to an indeterminate term of life in prison consecutive to a determinate term of 13 years and four months, and sentenced Craig to 11 years in prison.
Both defendants appeal. DeAnda contends the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence of photographs and videos found on electronic devices during a search of her home, and by allowing the prosecution to file an amended information during trial. She also contends her convictions must be reversed because facts not shown at the preliminary hearing were used to prove the torture charge; because the prosecutor committed misconduct; and because she received ineffective assistance of counsel. She alternatively asserts sentencing error based on a failure to apply section 654 to stay the prison terms imposed other than for the torture conviction.

Defendants KAXT, LLC and Warren Trumbly appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Diya TV, Inc., challenging a $213,500 damages award for lost advertising revenues. Defendants argue that the lost revenues are special damages that were not pleaded with particularity, and that the award is not supported by substantial evidence or proven with reasonable certainty. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Gilbert Orlando Ortiz, Jr., asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case.

Defendant Kimberly Marie Hostetler contends (1) the electronics search condition of her probation is unreasonable, overbroad, and violative of her Fifth Amendment rights, and (2) the protective order was issued pursuant to the wrong statute. We strike the probation condition and remand for the trial court to tailor the condition more narrowly.

T.K., a minor, was found by the juvenile court to have committed one violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The court removed him from the custody of his parents, granted probation, and placed him with his uncle. T.K. now challenges the imposed conditions of probation forbidding him to associate with gangs or gang members. He also challenges the inclusion in the dispositional order of a maximum term of confinement. We affirm the judgment.

Appellant John Ray Dynes appeals from the trial court’s denial of two of his petitions to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126 and his petition to modify his sentence. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appellant John Ray Dynes appeals from the trial court’s denial of two of his petitions to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126 and his petition to modify his sentence. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Defendant Eddie Ramirez Garcia was convicted by no contest plea of possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of heroin for sale. On appeal, he contends the electronic device search condition of his mandatory supervision is unconstitutionally overbroad. The People argue that the record does not support the conclusion that the condition was imposed. We agree with the People.
In supplemental briefing, defendant contends his two prior drug conviction enhancements must be stricken due to recent legislation. The People concede and we agree.also contends by way of supplemental briefing that the penalty assessments attached to the drug program fee (program fee) must be stricken. The People counter that not only must the penalty assessments attached to the program fee remain imposed, the penalty assessments attached to the criminal lab analysis fee (lab fee), recently struck by the trial court, must be reinstated. We agree with the People.

Appellant Frank Sepulveda was charged in count 1 with committing a lewd and lascivious act with L.S., a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)): in counts 2 and 3 with the continuous sexual abuse of M.S. and V.S., children under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)). As alternates to counts 2 and 3, Sepulveda was charged in counts 4 and 5 with committing lewd and lascivious acts with M.S. and V.S., children under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). It was further alleged as to counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 that Sepulveda committed the offense against more than one victim (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subd. (e)(4)), and that he committed at least one qualifying violation against the same victim within the applicable limitation period (Pen. Code, § 803, subd. (f)(1)).

Appellant Frank Sepulveda was charged in count 1 with committing a lewd and lascivious act with L.S., a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)): in counts 2 and 3 with the continuous sexual abuse of M.S. and V.S., children under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)). As alternates to counts 2 and 3, Sepulveda was charged in counts 4 and 5 with committing lewd and lascivious acts with M.S. and V.S., children under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). It was further alleged as to counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 that Sepulveda committed the offense against more than one victim (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subd. (e)(4)), and that he committed at least one qualifying violation against the same victim within the applicable limitation period (Pen. Code, § 803, subd. (f)(1)).

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the opposition filed by real party in interest, and petitioner’s reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that the equities favor petitioner. We conclude that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

The facts underlying defendant’s conviction for second-degree burglary are not in the record because the relevant dates were more than 20 years ago—1994 and 1995. A reporter’s affidavit of “No Notes” was included in the record. It states, “The notes for this record are more than ten years old and are no longer available for preparation.” After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

P.M. (mother) appeals the order terminating her parental rights and finding her now 10-year-old son, C.M., likely to be adopted. She argues the record contains insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s determinations that (1) C.M. is adoptable and (2) the parental benefit exception to terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply. We affirm.