CA Unpub Decisions

On November 8, 2010, S.F. (Minor) admitted she committed robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. She was placed on home supervision.
On December 1, 2010, Minor was declared a ward of the court and placed on home supervision.
In April 2011, Minor admitted violating the terms of her probation and she was committed to Breaking Cycles for a period not to exceed 150 days.
In June 2011, Minor again admitted violating her probation and the commitment to Breaking Cycles was extended for 90 days.
The juvenile court conducted an annual review of Minor's status in December 2011. At that time the court concluded Minor had successfully completed probation and terminated jurisdiction. Defense counsel requested the court to reduce Minor's conviction from robbery to grand theft from the person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)). The court denied the request.
Minor appeals contending the trial court erred in failing to understand the nature of its discretionary authority and that it abused its discretion in denying Minor's requested reduction of her offense. We find no error by the trial court and therefore affirm the order.

On August 19, 2010, a jury convicted Frank Richard Ram, Jr., of robbery in the second degree in violation of Penal Code[1] section 211 (count 1), assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 2) and active participation in a criminal street gang in violation of section 186.22, subdivision (a)(1) (count 3). The jury further found Ram committed the first two offenses for the benefit of, or at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, or further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1).
On October 12, 2010, the trial court sentenced Ram to a total of 12 years in state prison. Specifically, the court sentenced Ram to two years for the robbery and 10 years for the gang enhancement, two years for the assault and 10 years for the gang enhancement and two years for the gang participation conviction. The trial court further ordered that the sentences for the assault and gang participation convictions run concurrently with the 12-year sentence imposed on the robbery count.
Ram now appeals, claiming: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding he committed the offenses for the benefit of a gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b); (2) that the court erred by failing to preclude a witness's testimony under section 1054.1; (3) that Ram's concurrent sentence for participating in a criminal street gang (count 3) should have been stayed under section 654; and (4) that Ram's concurrent sentence for assault with a deadly weapon (count 2) should have also been stayed under section 654.

Steven Petroff appeals from an order enjoining him from harassing or contacting Julie Martin, and ordering Petroff to stay 100 yards away from Martin's home and workplace. (Code Civ. Proc.,[1] § 527.6.) Petroff challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the order. We reject Petroff's contentions and affirm.

Gilbert Chichi Ruiz appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction for the attempted voluntary manslaughter of Rafael Mercado and Ryan Espinoza (counts 1, 2), assaulting these individuals with a deadly weapon (counts 3, 4), and street terrorism (count 5). The jury found true that: (1) Ruiz personally used a knife in committing counts 1, 2 and 5; (2) promoted a criminal street gang in committing counts 1 to 4; and (3) personally inflicted great bodily injury in counts 1, 3 and 5.
Ruiz contends: (1) the evidence did not support the gang enhancements or the counts for attempted voluntary manslaughter; (2) the trial court improperly ordered him to pay $150 for court appointed attorney fees; and (3) the trial court should have stayed the consecutive sentence imposed for count 5, or, alternatively, should have stayed the four-month sentence on the count 5 deadly weapon enhancement. We reject his first contention, but agree that the $150 for court appointed attorney fees must be stricken and that the sentence on count 5 must be stayed under Penal Code section 654. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)

In an amended consolidated information, James Williams, Jr., was charged with three drug-related offenses committed on different dates in late 2009 (all further dates are to calendar year 2009 unless otherwise specified): (1) possession of cocaine base for sale on September 18 (count 1: Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5); (2) simple possession of cocaine base on September 23 (count 2: Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)); and
(3) possession of cocaine base for sale on December 1 (count 3: Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). As to counts 1 and 3, the information alleged Williams had suffered a prior drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). As to counts 2 and 3, the information alleged Williams had committed those offenses while released from custody on bail within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.1, subdivision (b) (undesignated statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified). The information also alleged Williams had suffered four probation denial prior convictions within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), and a 1992 prior strike conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d).

A jury convicted Anthony Albert Paez and Edgar Antonio Flores (defendants) of the provocative act murder of fellow gang member, Alexis Melendrez, arising out of a gun battle with police. The jury also convicted defendants of other crimes arising out of this incident, and Paez of crimes arising out of a similar, earlier, incident.

Appellant Gregorio Benitez appeals from the judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of four felony counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14 years (counts 1, 2, 3, and 5) (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)).[1] The jury found true the allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim, his stepdaughter who became pregnant (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)). The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of 21 years to life, consisting of 15 years to life on count 5 (principal count), and consecutive terms of two years each on the remaining three counts. Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of great bodily injury. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Wife appeals an order denying her motion to set aside a default judgment of dissolution of marriage brought pursuant to Family Code section 2122.[1] We affirm.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

The owners of a liquor store filed a complaint alleging their due process rights were violated because they were not allowed to sell alcoholic beverages without a conditional use permit (CUP). The trial court sustained the demurrer of the City of San Buenaventura (City) without leave to amend on the grounds that appellants initially failed to exhaust administrative remedies and, subsequently, exercised their administrative remedies and obtained the permit they sought. We affirm.

Appellants Charles and Deborah Smith obtained a loan in 2004 to purchase a vacation home. They did not make the required payments and the lender foreclosed in 2009. Almost a year after the foreclosure sale, appellants filed this action seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged wrongful foreclosure. Citing numerous pleading defects, the trial court sustained the respondents' demurrers to the complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.

Appellant Nicholas Garcia, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The jury also found true the allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted that he had suffered a prior felony conviction of first degree burglary (§ 459) within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). After denying appellant’s Romero[2] motion, the trial court sentenced appellant to nine years in state prison, consisting of the low term of two years on the assault charge doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law to four years, plus a five-year serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The court struck the punishment for the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
Appellant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to request a jury instruction on the defense of accident. Appellant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his prior felony strike. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Michael G. Sedlak, a subcontractor's employee, was injured when a trench he was excavating collapsed and partially buried him. He received workers' compensation through his employer. He filed a complaint against multiple parties, including respondent Neva Williams Bradigan (Williams). The operative complaint alleges a cause of action for negligence, including negligence per se, against Williams in her capacity as a member of the homeowner's association which hired Sedlak's employer and as signator of an agreement with Ojai Valley Sanitary District on behalf of the association as project manager.