CA Unpub Decisions

Hernan A. Reyes-Hernandez appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of attempting to make a criminal threat, disobeying a restraining order, and vandalism. He contends the court erred in allowing the prosecutor to elicit an opinion from an expert witness that the victim was involved in a cycle of violence, claiming that his defense counsel had not opened the door to the testimony by asking the expert whether he had formed such an opinion. We will affirm the judgment.

Appellant Henry Anthony Turpin, Jr. pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and was placed on probation. After Turpin admitted violating his probation in that matter, the court sentenced him to prison. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appellant Shirley Ann Franklin appeals from the denial of her petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, seeking modification of the sentence imposed on two of her convictions for use of an access card unlawfully obtained (§ 484g, subd. (a)). Appellant contends her convictions are eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 because an unsuccessful attempt to obtain property through the use of an access card qualifies as petty theft. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

A jury convicted appellant, Jorge Lopez Diaz, of two counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211. ) The two victims spoke only Spanish. Because the investigating officer, Christopher Anaya, was not fluent in Spanish, he used another member of the police force, Officer Gonzalez, to translate the victims’ statements.
Appellant argues that Anaya’s testimony at the preliminary hearing and at trial regarding the statements made by the victims was inadmissible. According to appellant, those translated statements were hearsay. Appellant’s trial counsel did not object to this testimony. Therefore, appellant asserts, his counsel was ineffective.
The objected to evidence was not hearsay. Thus, appellant’s ineffective counsel claim has no merit. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.

The superior court granted Chelsea Langner probation for a term of three years after she pleaded guilty to one count of sexual penetration of a minor with a foreign object (Pen. Code, §289, subd. (h)). Langner argues the superior court abused its discretion by imposing certain probation conditions that prohibit legal conduct that is not reasonably related to the offense or Langner's future criminality under the test established by People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). These conditions fall into three main categories: (1) conditions requiring Langner to refrain from using alcohol and drugs; (2) conditions requiring Langner to undergo therapy; and (3) restrictions typically applied to perpetrators of sexual offenses against minors. We conclude the conditions are valid under Lent and the court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed them, and affirm the judgment.

MCB Joint Ventures, LLC (MCB) agreed to subcontract certain electrical work to Bergelectric Corp. (Berg) in connection with a naval hospital construction project. After Berg completed its work, the parties disputed the amount of Berg's final payment under their contract. They submitted the dispute to binding arbitration, and the arbitrator rendered an award in Berg's favor, which the trial court confirmed.
On appeal, MCB asserts that the parties' contract was illegal and/or violated public policy, that Berg waived its right to arbitrate a portion of their payment dispute, and that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by awarding attorney fees to Berg. For reasons we explain, the trial court did not err in confirming the arbitration award. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

MCB Joint Ventures, LLC (MCB) agreed to subcontract certain electrical work to Bergelectric Corp. (Berg) in connection with a naval hospital construction project. After Berg completed its work, the parties disputed the amount of Berg's final payment under their contract. They submitted the dispute to binding arbitration, and the arbitrator rendered an award in Berg's favor, which the trial court confirmed.
On appeal, MCB asserts that the parties' contract was illegal and/or violated public policy, that Berg waived its right to arbitrate a portion of their payment dispute, and that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by awarding attorney fees to Berg. For reasons we explain, the trial court did not err in confirming the arbitration award. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

A jury found defendant Dane Huusfeldt guilty of possession of heroin for sale, and found true a quantity enhancement. The trial court sustained a recidivist allegation, and found defendant had violated his probation in the prior case. It sentenced him to county jail for a split term with a period of mandatory supervision (ordering the termination of probation in the prior matter on the completion of that sentence in January 2016).
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in receiving the jury’s verdict in his absence. We shall affirm.

This appeal concerns three children born to Karina E. (mother) and Emmanuel E. (father): Caroline E. (born in October 2012), Daniel E. (born in August 2013), and Victoria E. (born in July 2014). Mother and father’s fourth child, M.E. (born in May 2015), is not a subject of this appeal.
Father contends that the order terminating his parental rights must be conditionally reversed because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to conduct an inquiry into father’s Indian ancestry, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Because we conclude that any error was not prejudicial, we affirm the order terminating parental rights.

In November 2006, then 17-year-old defendant and appellant Michael Mauricio participated in two separate, gang-related drive-by shootings that resulted in multiple deaths. In January 2010, a jury convicted Mauricio of three counts of first degree murder, and found true firearm and gang benefit findings attached to all three counts. The trial court thereafter sentenced Mauricio to three consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for the murders, plus three consecutive indeterminate terms of 25 years to life for the findings that a principal had personally discharged a firearm causing death. In late 2011, we affirmed the judgment with modifications to certain fees (see People v. Mauricio (Nov. 28, 2011, B224505) [nonpub. opn.]), and, in early 2012, the Supreme Court denied Mauricio’s petition for review (see People v. Mauricio (Feb. 29, 2012, S199094) [nonpub. order]).

This case involves a conspiracy on the part of defendants and appellants Duane A. Vantuinen, Randall Joseph Whitmore, and Edwin Lynn Valentine—working together with Joshua Box, Lorraine Vasquez, Cory Mulligan, Brian Duran and Margaret High—to burglarize the homes of Los Angeles and San Bernardino County newspaper subscribers who requested temporary vacation stops of newspaper delivery. Most of the victims were customers of the Los Angeles Times, but some subscribed to other papers such as the Inland Valley Bulletin.
The evidence demonstrated that Vantuinen, while working as a machine repairman for various newspaper distributors, stole vacation stop lists and passed them along to his co-conspirators who carried out the burglaries. Using these lists, Box and Whitmore were able to commit burglaries at homes they knew would be temporarily unoccupied. The other co-conspirators apparently helped store and dispose of burglarized items. Valentine and Vantuinen also helped dispose of

Defendant and appellant Lamar Beckett (defendant) was convicted at trial of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 ) and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct when cross-examining defendant about some of his prior convictions; and (2) the trial court improperly imposed a sentencing enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1). We reject these contentions, affirm the conviction, but remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of deciding whether to impose or strike three sentencing enhancements for prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).

On June 17, 2014, defendant was charged by indictment with one count of possession of a short-barreled shotgun (§ 33210; count 1) and one count of carrying a firearm while masked (§ 25300; count 2). Additionally, the prosecution alleged a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) as to both counts. On February 17, 2015, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of possession of a short-barreled shotgun (§ 33210; count 1), and he admitted the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The remaining count of carrying a firearm while masked (§ 25300; count 2) was submitted for dismissal at the time of sentencing.

Leonardo Daniel Gomez appeals a judgment following his conviction of two counts of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2) ), one count of forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(A), one count of making a criminal threat (§ 422), two counts of first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460), and one count of first degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate indeterminate term of 75 years to life in prison for his three sexual offenses and an additional determinate term of six years four months in prison for his robbery conviction and related weapon enhancement and one of his first degree burglary convictions.