CA Unpub Decisions

This case arises from the theft of a wallet by defendant Nicte Hernandez. While the victim was trying to retrieve his wallet from Hernandez, codefendant Joseph Ferguson hit him in the face and knocked his tooth out. Hernandez and Ferguson then fled in Ferguson’s car but were arrested shortly thereafter. Following their trial by jury, Hernandez and Ferguson were convicted of robbery, battery with serious bodily injury, and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. Ferguson’s and Hernandez’s sentences for assault and battery were stayed under section 654.
On appeal, Hernandez, joined by Ferguson, claims the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the natural and probable consequences doctrine because the doctrine does not apply to trivial target offenses such as petty theft. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200(a)(5) & 8.360(a).)

On June 28, 2015, defendant and appellant Richard Gomez Ruiz was charged with sexual penetration of a child 10 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); a felony). A jury trial began on April 5, 2017, and on April 6, 2017, the jury found defendant guilty as charged.
The trial court issued a 15-years-to-life sentence on May 12, 2017. On May 16, 2017, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

On May 9, 2016, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Monique de la Corte with grand theft of an automobile under Penal Code section 487, subdivision (d)((1) (count 1); second degree commercial burglary under Penal Code section 459 (count 2); identity theft under Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a) (count 3); forgery relating to identity theft under Penal Code sections 470, subdivision (d), and 473, subdivision (a) (count 4); and possession of a forged driver’s license under Penal Code section 470b (count 5). The complaint further alleged that defendant had served eight prior prison terms under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Jose Renan Meza appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing under Health and Safety Code section 11361.8 (Proposition 64) and the subsequent sentencing order. Meza's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, indicating she has not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal or modification of the orders. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Meza the opportunity to file his own brief, but he has not responded. We affirm.

Defendant Chancy Romane Crenshaw's appointed counsel has filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, and inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.

Defendant Jacinto Jose Flores pleaded guilty to failing to report a change of address as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.013, subd. (a)) and admitted to having been convicted of three prior strikes. He was sentenced to a 25-year-to-life indeterminate term. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his prior strikes and thereby violated his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the judgment.

Samuel B. Williams appeals from an April 25, 2017 order summarily denying his nonstatutory motion to vacate or modify his sentence of 25 years to life, originally imposed in 2000 upon his conviction, in a court trial, of first degree murder with the personal use of a firearm. Following our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we conclude no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.

The trial court terminated defendant and appellant Donte Levon House’s probation, sending him to prison for the previously imposed, but stayed, four-year term. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal.

Jacob John Pulido appeals judgment after conviction for participating in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The jury found true an allegation that he committed the assault for the benefit of a street gang, within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b). It also found true prior strike, serious felony, and prior prison term allegations. It acquitted Pulido of robbery (§ 211).
We conclude sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that Pulido committed the assault for the benefit of a street gang, and the jury instructions on motive did not unconstitutionally reduce the People’s burden of proof on that allegation. We correct the sentence and otherwise affirm.

Winston & Strawn, attorneys of record for defendant/cross-complainant 1100 Wilshire Commercial, LLC (WC) obtained from its client attorney-client and attorney work product documents that had been prepared for plaintiff/cross-defendant 1100 Wilshire Property Owners Association (POA). WC obtained the documents because one of its managers was on the POA’s board of directors.
Instead of notifying opposing counsel and returning the documents or coming to an agreement with the POA concerning their use, the law firm attached the documents to a declaration in support of a trial reply brief. The POA, previously unaware Winston & Strawn was in possession of the documents, objected and demanded the law firm’s disqualification. The referee denied the POA’s motion to disqualify counsel, finding no irreversible damage to the POA’s case, but struck the privileged information from WC’s papers. We find no abuse of discretion and 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.

On March 8, 2016, Daniyel Iskandaryan, who was on probation in five separate misdemeanor cases, entered a Ralphs grocery store in Glendale, California and took a $25.99 bottle of vodka from a shelf, secreted it in his sweatshirt, and made to leave the store without paying. Rachelle Maudlin, the store manager, confronted him and asked that he return the bottle but Iskandaryan declined to do so, and instead became loud, called Maudlin names, and puffed out his chest. Iskandaryan was charged with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and it was alleged he had suffered a prior “strike” conviction for burglary, a serious felony (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (d), 1170).

Appellant Juan Guillen challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents. He argues the court incorrectly ruled that the evidence compendium he submitted was untimely and refused to consider it. We conclude that, even considering the improperly excluded evidence, appellant has not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief; hence the court’s error was harmless. We affirm.