CA Unpub Decisions

Pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant Marc Charles Ausema pled no contest to count 2 possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). In exchange, the count 1 charge of transportation of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and an allegation that he had been previously convicted of sale or transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2) were dismissed. Ausema was sentenced to three years’ formal felony probation, with the condition that he serve 120 days in county jail. He contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion at the preliminary hearing, or alternatively that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to renew the motion in the superior court. We affirm.

On February 20, 2016, a second amended complaint charged defendant and appellant Angelina Sigala with five violations of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), lewd act upon a child (counts 1, 2, 8, 9, 14); four violations of section 311.1, subdivision (a), exhibiting/publishing material depicting child sexual content (counts 3, 4, 10, 11); one violation of section 311.11, subdivision (a), possession of child or youth pornography (count 5); four violations of section 182m subdivision (a)(1), conspiracy to commit a crime (counts 6, 7, 12, 13); and one violation of section 261.5, subdivision (c), unlawful sexual intercourse (count 15). All the counts were charged as serious and violent felonies.

Defendant and appellant David Anthony Moreno appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence. For the reasons set forth post, we find that the trial court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion.

These consolidated appeals challenge judgments entered against defendant Nathan Vaughn in two related cases (Nos. 13F02636 and 14F05088).
In case No. 13F02636, defendant was convicted by jury of violating a protective order prohibiting him from having contact with S., his estranged wife. (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a).) Defendant failed to appear in court on the date scheduled for the preliminary hearing in that case and led police officers on a high-speed chase when they executed a bench warrant for his arrest. On the basis of that conduct, in case No. 14F05088, he was convicted by jury of failure to appear (Pen. Code, § 1320.5) and evading a pursuing peace officer while driving with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found defendant committed the latter crime while he was out of custody on bail in case No. 13F02636. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.) Defendant also admitted an allega

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.)

Jae Jeong Lyu appeals from an order denying his petition for production of transcripts from his trial proceedings in 2011 and 2012.
In a published opinion, we reversed Lyu’s felony convictions after a court trial for sexual penetration and oral copulation on an unconscious person under Penal Code sections 289, subdivision (d)(2) and 288a, subdivision (f)(2). We affirmed Lyu’s misdemeanor convictions for sexual battery under section 243.4, subdivision (e)(1). (People v. Lyu (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1293.) Lyu was released from custody in 2012.

Esequil De Jesus pleaded no contest to one count of assault with a firearm and admitted a specially pleaded allegation of personal use of a firearm. De Jesus appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate the negotiated plea. We affirm.

Leonard Earl Bales was convicted of numerous felonies with enhancements. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that he attempted to kill Amanda and that the attempted murder was with premeditation and deliberation. We affirm.

A jury convicted Nelson M. Moran of multiple counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with, and oral copulation or sexual penetration of, his young daughter, beginning when she was five years old and continuing over a three-year period. On appeal Moran contends the court erred when it found him competent to stand trial. We affirm.

In two criminal cases (MA064088 and MA067937), Jennifer Mae Miller (Miller) was convicted, in relevant part, of identity theft, forgery, and commercial burglary. On appeal, Miller contends the trial court erred in failing to provide a unanimity instruction in MA064088 and in failing to instruct the jury in MA067937 that in order to convict Miller of burglary, it had to find the value of the property Miller intended was over $950. We disagree and affirm the trial court in this respect. Miller also contends that the court should have stayed the sentences imposed in MA067937 for burglary and for forgery because these offenses were part of the same course of conduct as the identity theft. We agree only that the trial court should have stayed the burglary sentence.

Defendant Teodoro Penaloza appeals from his conviction for assault with a firearm and the subsequent jury finding that he was insane at the time he committed the offense. Defendant claims that his mental illness rendered him incapable of knowingly and intelligently waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) and therefore his statements to the police should have been suppressed. He further argues that the evidence was insufficient to show he did not act in self-defense. We affirm the judgment.

Brittney Lee appeals the order granting California Commerce Club’s motion to compel arbitration of her employment-related claims and dismissing her class action claims. Lee contends the trial court erred in granting California Commerce Club’s motion because her agreement to arbitrate employment disputes is unenforceable. We affirm.

Tower Lane Properties, Inc. (Tower) sought building and grading permits from the City of Los Angeles (the City) for construction of a three-residence family compound over three contiguous lots in Benedict Canyon, a neighborhood on the Westside. The City’s planning department denied the permits, in part because one lot had no lawful street access. Tower then obtained City approval of a “community driveway” connecting that lot with a private street, but the City still refused to clear the access condition because the private street itself was not approved. Tower instituted these writ proceedings, contending the City owed a ministerial duty to clear the street access condition because the driveway connected the landlocked lot with the private street. The trial court denied the petition, finding Tower’s driveway failed to provide lawful access because the private street from which it originated was not approved.

Kenneth Scott appeals a judgment following conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, and unlawful possession of ammunition. (Pen. Code, §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 30305, subd. (a)(1).) We modify the judgment to stay sentence regarding unlawful possession of ammunition, but otherwise affirm.