CA Unpub Decisions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R. Brehmer, Judge.
Richard M. Doctoroff, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Barton E. Bowers, Lewis A. Martinez, Kari Mueller, and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Arturo Aldo Gonzalez was convicted by a jury of carjacking, armed robbery, making a criminal threat, and evading a peace officer, and sentenced to an aggregate term of 23 years, eight months. He originally raised three issues on appeal. First, he contended he was entitled to a remand to allow him to request pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. Second, he argued his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the federal and state constitutions. Third, he requeste

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Richard V. Peel, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Edward Mahler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, and A. Natasha Cortina, Lynne G. McGinnis, and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Kenyon Darrell Brown appeals from the denial in 2021 of his motion to vacate his conviction and/or sentence under Penal Code section 1473.7. However, he does not argue that the denial was erroneous. Rather, he asks us to correct a clerical error in the minute order of his no contest plea and sentencing in 2017. We conclude that — while it would have been faster and more economical for defendant to ask the trial court to correct the error — he is entitled to have us correct it.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bryan K. Stodghill, Judge. Affirmed.
Kevin J. Lindsley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
This is the second appeal of defendant and appellant T.R. (minor) from a victim restitution order made after he was adjudged a person coming within section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. In his first appeal, we agreed with minor’s claim of insufficiency of evidence to support the order. (People v. T.R. (In re T.R.) (Oct. 8, 2020, E074089) [nonpub. opn.] pp. 1-2 (T.R. I).) There, we reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings to permit the victim to provide a factual basis for the losses identified in his restitution claim. (Ibid.)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Riverside. Otis Sterling III, Judge. Affirmed.
Trenton C. Packer for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Christine Y. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION
In 2016, V.N. moved into the home of defendant and appellant Wayne Eric Boyd after agreeing to work as his personal assistant. V.N. alleged that during the course of that relationship, defendant became psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Ronald L. Taylor, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Frank Sergio Alarid and his wife (Wife) were at the Sevilla Night Club in Riverside when Wife was escorted out of the club by two security officers for appearing to be too intoxicated. Wife was upset and said she had been arguing with defendant, who was still in the club. Defendant came outside and approached Wife. She told the security officers she did not want to leave with him. Defendant eventually got his car and Wife agreed to go home with him. On

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Timothy F. Freer, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, and Melissa Mandel and Seth M. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael Joseph Callahan was convicted of second degree murder for crashing his car into California Highway Patrol (CHP) Sergeant Steve Licon while driving intoxicated at 65 miles per hour on the shoulder of I-15. On appeal, Callahan argues: (1) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offenses of gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)), involuntary manslaughter (id., § 192, subd. (b)), and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (id., § 191.5, subd. (a)); (2) the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code se

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gregory W. Pollack, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Stuart Kane and Shane P. Criqui for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Stillman & Associates and Philip H. Stillman for Defendant and Appellant.

George Sharp sued Seven Arts Entertainment Inc. (Seven Arts) for defamation and invasion of privacy based on four tweets critical of Sharp’s business practices that were posted on Seven Arts’ Twitter account. Seven Arts filed a special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP motion). The trial court ruled the tweets were made in a public forum and concerned an issue of public interest, two of them were nonactionable opinions, and the other two were actionable statements of fact. The court therefore granted the motion in part and denied it in part by striking the allegations concerning two of the four tweets.

A jury found defendant Santos De Jesus Portillo Guzman guilty of committing multiple sex crimes against his two daughters, including continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)) and sexual penetration by force or duress of a minor over the age of 14 (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(C); count VIII). The trial court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 10 years in prison--the upper term of the applicable triad--on count VIII, plus 130 years to life in prison on the other offenses.
In our prior unpublished opinion of April 16, 2021, we agreed with the parties that under section 288.5, subdivision (c), defendant could not properly be convicted of continuous sexual abuse and also specific felony sex offenses against the same victim when the crimes were alleged to have occurred in the same time period. We reversed defendant’s convictions on two counts (one for each victim), vacated defendant’s sentence, and remanded the matter for resentencing. (See

Appointed counsel for defendant Bryce Thomas Nelsen asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On this court’s own motion, we ordered supplemental briefing by the parties on the effect of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731) (Senate Bill 567) on defendant’s sentence.
Defendant contends that Senate Bill 567, which took effect while his appeal was pending, applies retroactively to his case and requires reversal of his sentence and remand for resentencing. The People agree Senate Bill 567 applies retroactively, but argue the trial court sufficiently complied with the new law in selecting an upper term sentence and, alternatively, any error was harmless.

A jury convicted defendant Steven Kenneth Barnes on two counts of assault with a firearm (counts two and three), being a felon in possession of a firearm (count four), being a felon in possession of ammunition (count five), possession of heroin and cocaine for sale (count six), and possession of heroin and cocaine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm (count seven). The jury found true allegations that in committing the count two crime, defendant personally used a firearm and personally inflicted great bodily injury. It also found true an allegation that in committing the count six crime, defendant was personally armed with a firearm. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 26 years.

Johnny Jesse Roman, Jr. appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), robbery (§ 211), and unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and admitted two prior strike and serious felony convictions (§§ 667, subds. (a), (b), 1170.12, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life in state prison. Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in declining to dismiss one of his prior strikes in the interest of justice pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). We affirm.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________
Jose Guadalupe Torres pleaded no contest in March 2018 to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)), admitted the special allegation the offense had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and was sentenced to state prison for 16 years. In September 2021 Torres, representing himself, petitioned for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), added to the Penal Code by Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions.
Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
Mother appeals from orders denying her petition to change a court order and terminating her parental rights. On appeal, she contends the trial court erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Mother argues the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to conduct a proper inquiry of her and maternal relatives to determine whether D.S. is or may be an Indian child. The Department concedes that it did not conduct a proper ICWA inquiry and does not oppose a conditional

Tristan Strauss is the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and a member of the Board of Directors of iO73 Investments, Inc. (iO73), one of several companies comprising the Headwaters Group (the Group). The Group is engaged in the business of cannabis cultivation and distribution. Strauss and iO73 appeal from a judgment directing the issuance of a writ of mandate. The writ compels them to allow respondent Jonas Svensson to inspect and copy specified documents from the books and records of the “Group and the entities within it.” Respondent is a member of iO73’s Board of Directors and, according to the trial court, owns 26.5 percent of its outstanding shares. He is the former Executive Chairman of iO73.
As authority for the issuance of the writ, respondent relied on Corporations Code sections 1601 and 1602. Section 1601 permits a shareholder to inspect the books and records of the corporation and its subsidiaries. (Id., subds. (a)(1), (a)(3).) Section 1602 permits a director to insp