CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Marcus Kenneth Smith appeals following his jury conviction of the first degree murder of Donald Chapman, with a true finding on the allegation he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing Mr. Chapman’s death. The court found true a prior robbery conviction, and sentenced defendant to 80 years to life, denying defendant’s Romero motion to strike the prior conviction.
On appeal, defendant argues that prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument – based on the comment that “[y]ou can’t lawyer yourself out of facts” – requires reversal. Defendant also contends the trial court did not exercise informed discretion when it denied defendant’s Romero motion. And, in supplemental briefing, defendant contends that legislation effective January 1, 2018, ending the statutory prohibition on a trial court’s ability to strike a firearm enhancement (see Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5 & 12022.53), applies and requires a remand for a new sentencing hearing.

Plaintiff Richard Heltebrake seeks all or part of a $1 million reward offered for information leading to the apprehension of Christopher Dorner, a killer who was the subject of a manhunt throughout southern California in February 2013. The reward funds came from money donated to the Donner Reward Trust Account, administered by defendant Richards, Watson & Gershon (RWG), a law firm. A panel of three retired judges reviewed the reward claims and recommended in a 12-page written ruling that the trust funds be apportioned to several other people. Defendants the City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles), the City of Irvine (Irvine), and the County of Riverside (Riverside) all followed that recommendation in awarding rewards. The three-judge panel noted that plaintiff had not submitted a claim under the reward procedures and thus was not a claimant at all. The panel also found that plaintiff did not in fact provide information leading to Dorner’s capture, as law enforcement had already spotte

Francisco Valdez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).) We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and conclude that no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Saad Bishara appeals from a judgment of dismissal following an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid Payroll Management, Inc., Thrifty Payless, Inc., Kert Patal, Rehana Mustafa, and Ahlet Hii in this wrongful termination action. On appeal, Bishara contends triable issues of fact exist as to: 1) discrimination based on his age or having taken medical leave, including whether Bishara was satisfactorily performing his job at the time of his termination; 2) harassment based on his age and having taken medical leave; 3) retaliation; and 4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. We conclude there was no direct evidence that Bishara was terminated as a result of prohibited discrimination. Bishara failed to show a triable issue of fact that he was satisfactorily performing his job at the time of his termination. There was no evidence that harassment based on age or medical leave made his

A jury rejected defendant Vershonda Charisse Sneed’s self-defense claim and convicted her of first degree murder. The jury further found defendant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun causing death. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life in state prison. We affirm the judgment of conviction but remand to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 12022.53, subdivision (h) as amended effective January 1, 2018.

In separate trials, Peter Gatlin (Gatlin) and Neville Sykes also known as Steven Webly (Webly) were convicted on three counts of second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). According to the People, Webly was the robber and Gatlin was the getaway driver.

A jury convicted Sekona of first degree premeditated murder following a shooting outside a restaurant in Inglewood. The jury also found true the allegations Sekona committed the crime to benefit a criminal street gang and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. Sekona argues the trial court violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment by admitting case-specific testimonial hearsay statements by the prosecution’s gang expert, the People may not retry the gang allegation under the double jeopardy clause because there was no substantial evidence to support the jury’s true finding on the gang allegation, and the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the expert witness testimony in connection with the gang allegation. In a supplemental brief, Sekona argues recently enacted Senate Bill No. 620 requires remand for sentencing.

Appellant Tracy Joy Gomez challenges her conviction for voluntary manslaughter under Penal Code section 192, subdivision (a). She argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471, the standard jury instruction on the right to self-defense for initial aggressors and mutual combatants. We disagree and affirm.

Armando Rocha and Javier Trujillo appealed their convictions of first degree murder, with gang and firearm use enhancements. In an opinion filed on September 12, 2017, we affirmed both convictions. The defendants filed petitions for review in the Supreme Court, and defendant Rocha also filed a supplemental petition for review based on the newly enacted amendment to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h), which was to take effect on January 1, 2018. The Supreme Court granted defendant Rocha’s supplemental petition for review, and transferred the matter to this court “with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider the cause in light of S.B. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682).” The court denied defendant Trujillo’s petition for review.

Appellant Glen Dale Collins appeals from an order denying in part his Proposition 47 petition for a recall of sentence (former Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a) ). He contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that he is eligible for reduced punishment on his convictions for five counts of selling, transferring or conveying an access card (§ 484e, subd. (a); counts 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11), for which he received felony sentences. He similarly contends he is eligible for Proposition 47 relief as to one count of forging an access card signature (§ 484f, subd. (b); count 16) for which he was also given a felony sentence, and he argues a contrary conclusion would violate equal protection guarantees. Finally, he claims the trial court erroneously failed to consider his request for Proposition 47 relief as to his earlier burglary convictions in superior court case Nos. YA010018 and KA017148.

Ernest Moore was a Los Angeles County social worker who reported to Edward Bielecki until the County terminated Moore’s employment some time prior to September 26, 2015. On that date, Moore approached Bielecki and his wife at a restaurant while they ate dinner and “threw” a punch at Bielecki. The two men fought until the restaurant manager separated them and Moore left.
Bielecki sought a restraining order against Moore, which the trial court granted after a contested hearing. Moore contends among other things that substantial evidence does not support the court’s order. We reject Moore’s various arguments and affirm.

After defendants Natoma Family Housing, L.P. and St. Joseph’s Family Associates, L.P. prevailed against plaintiff Magco Drilling, Inc.’s complaint for foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien, defendants filed a motion seeking to recover cost-of-proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, based on plaintiff’s failure to admit certain requests for admission. Defendants appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion, arguing the court erred in concluding they had waived the right to recover such costs. We affirm.

After C.C. ran away from his group home placement, Humboldt County Department of Health & Human Services (Department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking to change his placement to a higher level group home. The juvenile court granted the petition, and also reduced appellant’s [Mother’s] visitation with C.C. from 16 hours per month to 8 hours per month. Mother appeals from the order, maintaining the Department failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) inquiry and notice requirements. She also asserts the juvenile court abused its discretion in changing C.C.’s placement, and acted in excess of its authority in reducing her visitation. We conclude any ICWA deficiency does not impact the dispositional orders, but remand with directions for the juvenile court to direct the Department to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA, if it has not already done so. As to the order reducing C.C.’s visitation with Mother, we con

Andrew Lee filed suit against David Wieder and his company, Iniki Services, Inc., in the Alameda County Superior Court, seeking to collect unpaid amounts due on a promissory note (the Alameda litigation). The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding the action was barred by a prior judgment in an action between Lee and Wieder in the Sonoma County Superior Court (the Sonoma litigation). We disagree with the trial court’s application of res judicata principles and find that the case should have been stayed rather than dismissed.