CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendants Noah Keoni Akuna and Frank Nathan Escalante of the first degree murder of German Palacious (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and of conspiracy to commit that murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)), with true findings in both counts that each defendant personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (c) and (b)), that a principal discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)), and that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The jury also convicted each defendant of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant Escalante admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 80 years to life in state prison. Defendant Akuna was sentenced to an aggregate term of 50 years to life in state prison.

Petitioner J.Q. (Mother) seeks writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of a juvenile court order terminating parental rights and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother challenges the juvenile court’s determinations that she was provided reasonable reunification services and that the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) made diligent efforts to locate and evaluate potential relatives for placement. We deny the petition.

Petitioner J.Q. (Mother) seeks writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of a juvenile court order terminating parental rights and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother challenges the juvenile court’s determinations that she was provided reasonable reunification services and that the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) made diligent efforts to locate and evaluate potential relatives for placement. We deny the petition.

Defendant Christian Zuniga was sentenced to four years of felony probation with eight months in county jail after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing injury. His court-appointed appellate counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing.

A juvenile court found appellant unlawfully drove or took a vehicle without the owner’s consent. Appellant contends (1) the court’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the court violated double jeopardy protections by reversing itself after finding the evidence insufficient to support the allegations of the petition, and (3) the court erred by failing to rule on appellant’s motion to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor and recognize its discretion to designate the wobbler offense as a misdemeanor. We conclude the matter must be remanded for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion to designate the offense as a misdemeanor or felony, and if appropriate, consider appellant’s motion to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

Appellant Meaghan Keegan challenges the dismissal of this case after the trial court purportedly required her, over her objection, to accept a payment to satisfy a judgment in a separate case and to file a satisfaction of judgment in that case. Because Keegan has failed to provide us with an adequate record to consider her claims, we affirm.

Minor J.G., already a ward of the court, was committed to Challenge Academy for a maximum term of five years four months after the juvenile court found he committed grand theft and two counts of second degree commercial burglary. The charges arose from the break-in of a medical marijuana dispensary, which was captured on video by several dispensary surveillance cameras.
On appeal, minor contends there was insufficient evidence he was the perpetrator of the burglary, the juvenile court relied on inadmissible, unauthenticated video recordings, and there was insufficient evidence that two burglaries occurred. He also raises errors in the disposition.
We reject minor’s claims of insufficiency of the evidence.

Appellant Johnta Huntley appeals from an order suspending imposition of a criminal sentence and imposing three years of formal probation. The sole issue raised on appeal is her constitutional challenge to one of the terms of probation that requires her to submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed by the probation department. We conclude the challenge has been forfeited due to the failure of appellant to object to the condition of probation in the trial court.

Before he began working for SBM Site Services (SBM), Aaron Castro signed an agreement requiring arbitration of disputes “arising out of or related to” his employment. About six months later, Castro signed a trade secret agreement which, among other things, prohibited Castro from using or disclosing SBM’s trade secrets and confidential information without SBM’s authorization. The trade secret agreement required disputes “arising out of” that agreement to be litigated in state or federal court in Sacramento County.
After his termination, plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging SBM refused his request for time off and fired him in retaliation for seeking medical leave. SBM moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement. The trial court denied the motion. It concluded the trade secret agreement rendered the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable, and that the unconscionability could not be severed.

Before he began working for SBM Site Services (SBM), Aaron Castro signed an agreement requiring arbitration of disputes “arising out of or related to” his employment. About six months later, Castro signed a trade secret agreement which, among other things, prohibited Castro from using or disclosing SBM’s trade secrets and confidential information without SBM’s authorization. The trade secret agreement required disputes “arising out of” that agreement to be litigated in state or federal court in Sacramento County.
After his termination, plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging SBM refused his request for time off and fired him in retaliation for seeking medical leave. SBM moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement. The trial court denied the motion. It concluded the trade secret agreement rendered the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable, and that the unconscionability could not be severed.

Defendant Marco Martinez-Hernandez (aka Marco Antonio Martinez-Hernandez) refused to believe his wife’s repeated denials that she was unfaithful to him. His efforts to get the wife to confirm his suspicions turned violent, towards her and their four children. Threats of her dismemberment by knife or machete, and execution of her children by bullet failed to elicit her confession. Ultimately, in the children’s presence, defendant beat his wife, cut her with a knife, and hit her with a baseball bat.
Based on the evidence of these events, a jury found defendant guilty of more than two dozen felonies and misdemeanors, for which he was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of more than 50 years.

Martin Hohenegger appeals following jury verdicts convicting him of two counts of first degree murder and finding him legally sane at the time of the murders. He raises numerous challenges to the guilt proceedings: the trial court inadequately responded to jury questions, the court committed instructional errors, evidence of an uncharged offense was improperly admitted, and the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments. We reject these challenges. We agree with appellant’s claims regarding an error in the abstract of judgment and a remand of firearm enhancements pursuant to recent legislation, and otherwise affirm.

Appellant Robert Lee Thomas appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, for robbery and carrying a loaded firearm. Thomas claims the prosecution violated Penal Code section 1054.7 by its late disclosure of jail telephone calls, the trial court improperly admitted the calls at trial, and failed to provide a jury instruction on the late disclosure. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the calls because the late disclosure of the calls was necessitated by defense counsel’s delayed disclosure of alibi witnesses. Thomas next argues the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. Finally, Thomas argues there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because of the victim’s lack of positive identification of him as the robber.

Appellant Robert Lee Thomas appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, for robbery and carrying a loaded firearm. Thomas claims the prosecution violated Penal Code section 1054.7 by its late disclosure of jail telephone calls, the trial court improperly admitted the calls at trial, and failed to provide a jury instruction on the late disclosure. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the calls because the late disclosure of the calls was necessitated by defense counsel’s delayed disclosure of alibi witnesses. Thomas next argues the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. Finally, Thomas argues there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because of the victim’s lack of positive identification of him as the robber.