CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant James E. Gary guilty of two counts of human trafficking involving victims Jane Doe 1 (count 1) and Jane Doe 2 (count 2), both minors (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c)). The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of eight years on count 1 and two years eight months on count 2, for a total term of 10 years 8 months.

In the underlying operative complaint, plaintiff Dalia Rojas pleaded two causes of action against defendants HSBC Card Services Inc. and HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. (together HSBC) based on HSBC's alleged violations of Rojas's right to privacy under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Privacy Act), Penal Code section 630 et seq. More specifically, Rojas alleged that HSBC intentionally recorded certain of her confidential telephone conversations in violation of: section 632, subdivision (a) (§ 632(a)), which prohibits one party to a telephone call from intentionally recording a confidential communication without the knowledge or consent of the other party; and section 632.7, subdivision (a) (§ 632.7(a)), which prohibits the intentional recording of a communication using a cellular or cordless telephone.

A jury convicted Katherine Ann Heinzel of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)), driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher causing injury (id., subd. (b)). As to the manslaughter conviction, the jury found true the allegation that Heinzel personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7. subd. (c)(8).) As to each of the other two convictions, the jury found true two allegations that Heinzel personally inflicted great bodily injury (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and one allegation that she proximately caused bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23558). The court sentenced Heinzel to a total term of eight years eight months in prison.

A consolidated amended information charged defendant Ignacio Canela with premediated attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) & 664, subd. (e), count 1); felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2); felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3); felony evasion (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 4); carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a), count 5); transportation of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count 6); possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (id., § 11378, count 7); possession of a controlled substance (hydrocodone) (id., § 11377, subd. (a), count 8); possession of a controlled substance (diazepam) (id., § 11377, subd. (a), count 9); possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (id., § 11378, count 10); possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) (id., § 11350, subd. (a), count 11); poss

In January 2016 defendant Clifton Robert Walter Hicks punched and kicked his fiancé, ejecting her from the car in which they were driving. He then drove away but returned a short time later and attempted to force her back into the car. In February 2016 defendant robbed a bank then fled when Woodland police attempted to pull him over. Charged with multiple offenses arising from both incidents, defendant pleaded no contest to all charges and admitted multiple alleged enhancements. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 years in state prison following the trial court’s denial of his Romero motion to strike a prior strike. He appeals that denial.

Appellant father Derrick G. Rogers (Father) appeals from an order modifying a prior order for child support. Father contends there was no evidence of changed circumstances to support the trial court’s decision. We disagree and affirm the court’s order.

In this People’s appeal, the trial court denied a motion to reinstate a complaint charging defendant Phillip Leo Muradanes with various firearms offenses based on his possession of a loaded handgun and ammunition during a traffic stop. (Pen. Code, §§ 29900, 25850, 29800, 30305.) The complaint was dismissed after the magistrate granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the handgun and ammunition based on his conclusion the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion defendant was engaged in unlawful activity.
The People argue the trial court erred in denying the motion to reinstate the complaint because the totality of the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop provided the officer with an objectively reasonable basis to suspect defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol or another impairing substance. We agree and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to grant the motion to reinstate the complaint.

A jury found defendant Gordon Charles Grissom guilty of 32 sexual offenses committed against one minor victim. The trial court sentenced defendant to 54 years in prison.
Defendant now contends the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress statements made to detectives because he made the statements during a custodial interrogation without first receiving Miranda warnings, and (2) requiring defendant to reimburse law enforcement for medical examinations occurring after sentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1h.
We conclude the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, but we will modify the judgment to strike the order requiring defendant to reimburse law enforcement for future medical examinations and affirm the judgment as modified.

Vernell Watts, appeals from the judgment entered after he pled no contest to unauthorized possession of drugs in prison. (Pen. Code, § 4573.8.) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to 16 months state prison, to run consecutive to a 19-year prison sentence appellant was serving for voluntary manslaughter. Appellant was ordered to pay a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), and statutory fines totaling $70.

A.A. appeals a judgment entered after the juvenile court sustained one count of a wardship petition alleging that he committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) The court declared A.A. to be a ward of the court, placed him on home probation with terms and conditions, and ordered him to pay a $100 restitution fine.

F.F., a minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s May 16, 2017 order denying a motion to dismiss and order finding that a felony second degree robbery petition (Pen. Code, § 211; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) was true.
On December 1, 2016, appellant admitted one count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent on November 8, 2016 (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), a second count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent on September 25, 2016, and fleeing a peace officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code,
§ 2800.2). The trial court sustained both petitions, declared appellant a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), and ordered appellant placed home on probation.

Though Rafael G. (father) had more than two years to comply with the juvenile court’s order to undergo individual counseling to address his violent and controlling behavior, he never did. So, when the court terminated jurisdiction over Gabriela G., Lourdes G., and A.G., it awarded sole legal and physical custody to Maria G. (mother). Father was granted visitation. We are asked to decide whether the court abused its discretion by denying father joint legal custody of the children. Because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd for the court to conclude the children’s interests would be best served by giving mother sole authority over decisions about their health, education, and welfare, we affirm.

Eddie Close appeals a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), directing appellant to not harass or contact his sister-in-law, respondent Diane P., and to move out of respondent’s house located in Greenville, California. (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) Appellant contends that the judgment is not supported by the evidence. We affirm.

Cecil Martinez appeals an order granting cross-defendants’, David Sandoval, Allison Sandoval, Matthew M. Loker, and the Kazerouni Law Group, APC, anti-SLAPP motion to strike the malicious prosecution and abuse of process causes of action in Martinez’s second amended cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) The trial court found that Martinez failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claims. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) We affirm.