CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Jose Alberto Valencia appeals his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. He contends that his conviction for the latter offense must be reversed because it is included within the former offense. He also contends that his conviction on both counts must be reversed because the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument improperly misstated the burden of proof. We reject both arguments. However, we agree with both parties that defendant is entitled to one additional day of presentencing custody credit.

A jury convicted Kevin Curtis Cannon of three counts of forcible rape of a child (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and one count of forcible sodomy of a child (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (c)(2)(C)), and the trial court sentenced him to 44 years in prison (11 years for each count). The victim was the young teenage daughter of his longtime on again, off again girlfriend. Cannon challenges his conviction on three grounds: (1) the prosecution presented false evidence to support the sodomy charge; (2) the trial court committed reversible error when it excluded a recording of the victim’s police interview; and (3) the prosecutor committed reversible error in her remarks during closing argument. We conclude Cannon’s arguments lack merit and affirm his convictions.

Mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her reunification services at the 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)). Mother contends the court erred in terminating her reunification services because the court extended Father's reunification services to 18 months (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3)(A), 366.21, subd. (g)(1)) and did not set a selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26). We conclude the court had the authority to terminate Mother's reunification services notwithstanding the court's extension of Father's reunification services and Mother has not established the court abused its discretion in doing so.

Current and former owners of 33 condominiums in the 138-unit Seahaus common interest development in La Jolla, California sued the structural engineer, builder, and other entities after they learned about common-area construction defects caused during the building phase. Plaintiffs claimed they purchased their units relying on certain representations about the quality of construction. D'Amato Conversano, Inc. (DCI), the structural engineer, moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs had expressly assigned their claims to the Seahaus La Jolla Owners Association (the HOA) and therefore lacked standing. Pointing out that the HOA had sued over the same defects, DCI further argued plaintiffs were engaging in improper claim splitting. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment. Plaintiffs contend the trial court misconstrued their claims and assert that they seek to recover only damages to their individual units.

Following a bench trial, the court dismissed Samuel Craig, Jr.'s action in which he challenged the validity of his deceased father's will. The court found the action is barred by the statute of limitations because the will was properly probated more than 20 years earlier. Craig appeals contending the court erred in its findings because there is no established statute of limitation for the tort of intentional interference with expected inheritance and because Craig claims he did not discover the defendants' fraudulent actions until April 2014, less than a year before his action was filed. Craig failed to request a statement of decision and, therefore, we must imply the trial court made the necessary findings to support the judgment. Thus, we affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Tzadok Vaniyah Ben-Israel asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are 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.

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

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

A search of the car in which defendant Bart Pennington, a felon, was sitting uncovered methamphetamine and ammunition. A jury found him guilty of possessing methamphetamine as a lesser included offense to possession of methamphetamine for sale, and also of unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon. He was sentenced to three years in state prison for the ammunition offense and three years of informal probation for the drug offense.
Defendant appeals, contending that there is insufficient evidence that he possessed the ammunition found in the car, and that the court erroneously instructed the jury on the element of possession, which not only violated his constitutional right to due process but also resulted in a directed verdict on that charge. We conclude the record contains sufficient evidence of possession and that the trial court properly instructed the jury. We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ger Her 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.

Given the manner in which this criminal prosecution was litigated and the very unusual set of verdicts returned by the jury, we must reverse a murder conviction due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
Defendant Christoph Peter Ebert-Stallworth II and a companion drove to a parking lot to buy marijuana but fled without the drugs when one of them fired a gun, killing seller Baron Seidel. The prosecutor’s primary theory was first-degree felony murder based on attempted robbery, but the jury deadlocked on attempted robbery and returned a verdict of not guilty on first-degree murder. The jury, adopting the prosecutor’s alternate theory, found defendant guilty of second-degree murder and found defendant personally and intentionally discharged the firearm causing death. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022.53; unless otherwise set forth, statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code.)

Benny Albert Gonzalez appeals his conviction by jury of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code § 11364, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that Gonzalez had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). It suspended imposition of sentence and placed Gonzalez on formal probation for three years with the condition that he enroll in a residential treatment program. The court also ordered Gonzalez to serve 421 days in county jail. Because Gonzalez had 421 days of presentence credit, the jail term was deemed served.

Travis Sakai (Sakai) sued Massco Investments, LLC, (Massco) for negligence and premises liability after he was struck and then dragged by a vehicle exiting Massco’s parking lot. The trial court granted summary judgment to Massco on the ground that there was “no foreseeability and no duty.” On appeal, Sakai argues that the trial court erred because the accident was reasonably foreseeable. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Andrew Jordan appeals from his conviction for human trafficking, aggravated assault, willful infliction of corporal injury to a cohabitant, pimping, and pandering by procuring. He contends the trial court erred by excluding evidence that his two victims engaged in commercial sexual activity prior to becoming trafficking victims. He further contends the court erred by imposing consecutive prison terms for aggravated assault and infliction of corporal injury to a cohabitant, which he argues were crimes indivisible from the human trafficking.
We reject the first contention but accept the second, and thus modify the judgment and affirm it as modified.