CA Unpub Decisions

Sibling Associates, LLC, and two of its tenants, Saffron Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Mayur Cuisine of India, and Arzalan “Jacob” Azillolahi, doing business as a Subway sandwich shop (collectively, Sibling Associates or Sibling), appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 533; all further statutory references are to this code unless noted; see also § 904.1, subd. (a)(6); Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 85, 90 [order refusing to dissolve an injunction is appealable].) Sibling asserts the preliminary injunction Gary Sauter obtained pending trial on his claim of a prescriptive easement for parking on Sibling’s property must be dissolved because no easement can be acquired in violation of city zoning ordinances governing parking. As we explain, the trial court did not err in denying Sibling’s dissolution motion.

A jury convicted defendant Tina Marie Best of three counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (c).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on three years’ formal probation. On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the court abused its discretion when it denied her invitation under section 1385, subdivision (a), to dismiss two of the counts in furtherance of justice. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Daryl Anthony Hicks appeals from convictions of three counts of human trafficking of a minor, four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years his junior, one count of possession of a controlled substance, one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and three counts of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. He was sentenced to 19 years, four months in prison. On appeal, he asserts numerous instances of instructional error and insufficient evidence to support one of the trafficking counts. He also argues the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term on one of the trafficking counts, and claims the court failed to sufficiently state the reasons for imposing the upper term on various other counts. He also contends the court erred by not staying numerous counts pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and states there is an error on the abstract of judgment.

Santa Ana police officers saw a person conduct a hand-to-hand drug sale out of a passenger window of a car; defendant Marco Antonio Charcas Fernandez was the driver of the car. A jury convicted defendant of three crimes involving the sale and possession of narcotics and the crime of being an active gang member. The jury also found true three gang enhancements.Defendant claims that the People’s gang expert related hearsay statements to the jury in violation of our state’s Evidence Code, as well as testimonial hearsay in violation of the federal Constitution’s confrontation clause. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 686 (Sanchez).) Defendant also claims the evidence was insufficient to support the substantive gang crime and the gang enhancements.The trial court erred by allowing the gang expert to relate inadmissible hearsay statements (some of them testimonial) to the jury. This is not surprising.

Appointed counsel for defendant Amador Figueroa asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded with a letter. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Wilfredo Lara of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, two counts of assault with a firearm, and discharge of a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle. It also was found true that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of each count and had a prior strike and serious felony conviction. Defendant appealed and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.

Appellant/defendant Sarai Alavez was convicted after a jury trial of multiple felonies including torture, with enhancements for personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, and personal infliction of great bodily injury on a child under the age of five years. The victim was Alavez’s two-year-old daughter, B. Alavez and her two daughters had been living with Haroon Pimentel and Kathy Yoval. According to Alavez, Pimentel and Yoval chastised her for not sufficiently disciplining the two children, and thereafter committed numerous horrific acts of “discipline” on B., and inflicted grievous injuries on B. and less serious injuries on B.’s older sister. Alavez admitted that she did not intervene or protect the children, and participated in these acts. Alavez was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for torture plus seven years for the enhancements.

Defendant Robert Avila, Jr., was charged with seven counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon D.B., a child under 14 years of age; and 11 counts of committing a forcible act of sexual penetration upon D.B.. Later, at the prosecution’s request, counts 16 through 18 were dismissed. The information alleged that defendant perpetrated the offenses underlying counts 1 through 7 between January 1988 and July 18, 1988, when D.B. was 13 years old; and perpetuated the offenses underlying counts 8 through 15 between August 1988 and November 1989, when D.B. was at least 14 years old. The information also alleged that the special supplementary statute of limitations for certain sex crimes against minors controlled. The jury found defendant guilty as charged.

A jury convicted Joseph Leon Ames of making criminal threats and using a motor vehicle to commit assault with a deadly weapon. The victim was Ames’s on-again, off-again girlfriend, who is also the mother of his child. The charges were based on a minor automobile collision and statements allegedly made during a telephone conversation., the People introduced evidence of prior domestic violence committed by Ames against the same victim. Admitted pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109, the evidence consisted of testimony by the victim regarding the prior incident, photographs of injuries sustained by the victim during that incident, and a nearly 40-minute video of a police interview in which Ames acknowledges his commission of a violent sexual assault. The video contains graphic descriptions of thoroughly deplorable behavior, which Ames recounts with barely a hint of remorse. The video also makes clear that the incident occurred in front of the couple’s toddler-aged daughter.

Deshawn Marques Roberts (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of premeditated attempted murder in which a principal intentionally and personally discharged a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 664, 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1); count 1), permitting another person to discharge a firearm from a vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (b); count 2), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 3), carrying a concealable firearm in a vehicle while an active participant in a criminal street gang, and being an active participant in a criminal street gang. Defendant was sentenced to a total unstayed prison term of life with the possibility of parole.On appeal, we hold1) The prosecutor did not commit prejudicial misconduct; (2) Defendant is not entitled to reversal on the ground of trial court bias; and (3) Defendant’s statements to police were prope properly admitted. Accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant was sentenced to 30 years in prison for ongoing sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s minor daughter. He challenges the trial court’s selection of upper terms on his three felonies and its imposition of a $259.50 booking fee. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.

Appellant Rayna Marie Flores appeals her conviction on one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 246) , with the special allegation that the crime was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. (§ 186.22, subd. (b).)In this appeal, appellant argues we must reverse the gang enhancement and her underlying conviction due to the improper admission of evidence regarding her status as a gang member. In particular, appellant contends the court improperly admitted statements she made during booking which violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and opinion testimony regarding her and her companion’s gang status based on testimonial hearsay that violated her Sixth Amendment right to confront witness.For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

A comparatively new statute in California’s bail bond scheme, Penal Code section 1305.6, adopted in 2012, requires courts to set aside summary judgments entered against bail bond companies in situations where the absconding defendant has been arrested outside the county in which the bailed case is pending. The kicker is that section 1305.6 requires “good cause” as a prerequisite for such a belated, post-summary judgment, request. So far, two published opinions, People v. Accredited Surety Casualty Co. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 548 (Accredited 2014) and People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 308 (Financial Casualty 2017) have explored the quantum of effort on the part of the bail bond surety – in practice, usually the surety’s bail agent – which makes for good cause.

Amber H. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to S.H. and Jasmine, her now eight- and two-year-old daughters. Mother contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that she physically abused S.H. was error because the court failed to address evidence S.H. was hit by children at her daycare. She seeks an order granting her reunification services. We deny the petition.