CA Unpub Decisions

In this bail forfeiture case, International Fidelity Insurance Company (surety) appeals a December 21, 2010, order denying its motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail, an appealable order (People v. Wilcox (1960) 53 Cal.2d 651, 654-655), and a January 11, 2011, order of summary judgment entered on the forfeiture (Pen. Code, § 1306, subd. (a)).[1] Surety contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to declare bail forfeited on January 21, 2009, because the court improperly failed to declare forfeiture twice before for nonappearances by criminal defendant Jose M. Zimic--once for an arraignment on September 10, 2008, and again for a preliminary hearing on January 15, 2009 (the September 10 and January 15 hearings).
We affirm the orders.

A jury convicted Sean Mooney of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)[1]), elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)), and purchasing a stolen gun (§ 496, subd. (a)). The jury also found true allegations that Mooney personally used a firearm, intentionally discharged a firearm, and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a); 12022.53, subd. (b), (c) & (d).) Finally, the jury found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed for financial gain. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1).) Mooney was sentenced to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole and a consecutive 25 year-to-life term for the gun use allegation.
On appeal, Mooney contends the judgment must be reversed because evidence of his involuntary statements was erroneously admitted at trial. Mooney also contends that the trial court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense of murder that was supported by the evidence, that there was a prejudicial error in a jury instruction pertaining to the special circumstance allegation, and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for elder abuse. We reject all of these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Jason Morey Martinez was convicted by plea of petty theft with a prior involving a single victim in violation of Penal Code section 666.[1] He also admitted to having two violent or serious prior felony convictions within the meaning of sections 667.5, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, and a prison prior within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court granted, in part, his Romero[2] motion, dismissing the oldest prior strike and staying the prison prior in the interests of justice under section 1385. The court then sentenced Martinez to six years in prison for the petty theft, consisting of the upper term of three years, doubled for the remaining prior strike. The court imposed various fines and fees and ordered $402.50 in victim restitution, the total claimed loss of two victims, a mother and adult daughter, but payable to only one of them. The court awarded Martinez actual custody credits of 326 days, plus conduct credits under section 4019, subdivision (f) of 162 days, for a total of 488 days of pre-sentence credit.[3]

Defendant contends his conviction for receiving stolen property should be vacated because he cannot be convicted of robbery and receiving stolen property based on the same property. The People concede defendant's conviction for receiving stolen property was in error and should be reversed.

A jury convicted appellants Nolberto Resendiz and Martin Arroyo of two counts of attempted premeditated murder and one count of street terrorism. It also convicted Arroyo of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle and found true various enhancement allegations, including that the attempted murders were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. On appeal, we reject appellants' claims that their convictions should be reversed due to insufficient evidence and evidentiary error. However, we do agree with them that the trial court should have 1) stayed their sentences for street terrorism, and 2) sentenced Resendiz to life in prison with parole, as opposed to 15 years to life, on the attempted murder counts. We will modify appellants' sentences accordingly and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Janice Lingenfelter appeals from judgment entered after a jury returned with a verdict in favor of defendant County of Fresno (County) on her cause of action for intentional infliction of emotion distress.
We conclude that Lingenfelter has not established that the trial court committed a prejudicial error in its rulings or that the evidence required the jury to find in her favor as a matter of law.
Therefore, the judgment will be affirmed.

K.L. (minor) (born February 2008) came to the attention of plaintiff and respondent Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department) on January 25, 2010, after paramedics brought him to the hospital in response to the 911 call of defendant and appellant T.H. (mother). Minor was reportedly nonresponsive at the time the paramedics arrived. Minor was diagnosed with a hematoma (bruise) incurred from bumps sustained to his head; he was ordered hospitalized.[1] Mother was on probation for a conviction of child endangerment with regard to her first child, A.H. The juvenile court had previously terminated mother's parental rights with respect to A.H. on January 17, 2008.[2]

Justina S. and R.M. contend the juvenile court erred when it set a hearing to select and implement a permanency plan under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] for their daughter, S.M. The parents contend the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding the return to Justina's custody would be detrimental to S.M. We deny the petition.

About 4:30 a.m. on December 30, 2009, officers responded to a report of suspicious activity at the intersection of 16th and P Streets in Sacramento. The caller had observed two men attempting to break into an ATM using a blow torch and they were leaving in a pickup truck. Officers saw the pickup, later determined to be stolen, and activated their lights and sirens in an attempt to stop the pickup. Instead of stopping, the driver, later identified as defendant Ronnie Mauricio Barahona, led the officers, who were in separate patrol cars, on a high-speed chase through residential streets, running stop signs, and eventually merging onto westbound Interstate 80. Defendant exited the highway into West Sacramento, entered a residential area, drove onto a lawn, almost colliding with the house, sideswiped a Chevy Blazer, and continued until he struck a fire hydrant. Defendant and John Ditgen then fled on foot.
Officers Michael Cuevas got out of his patrol car and Officer Michael Stoltzfus attempted to cut defendant off with his patrol car. Defendant fired a gun once, paused, and then fired two more times. Officer Stoltzfus got out of his patrol car. Defendant continued to run, turned and fired his gun. Officer Stoltzfus claimed that defendant fired the fourth shot directly at him. The officers lost sight of defendant.
Officers found Ditgen hiding in a backyard of a residence. Three hours later, officers found defendant hiding in the rafters of a detached garage. Defendant assisted officers in recovering his gun, a loaded semiautomatic firearm.

While defendant George Milward was serving a life term in prison, he assaulted another inmate with a deadly weapon, a knife. Based upon the assault, a jury convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon by a life prisoner in violation of Penal Code section 4500[1] and of an assault with a deadly weapon, other than a firearm, in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1).[2] The jury also found defendant had two prior serious felony convictions (murder and attempted murder, arising out of the same case) within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (a) and (b) through (i) and 1170.12.

Miguel C. (Father) and Christina R. (Mother) appeal from the order terminating their parental rights over their son Isaaiah C.[1] Father also appeals from the order denying his Welfare and Institutions Code[2] section 388 petition.[3] We affirm.

Javier U. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following the juvenile court's finding that he committed the offense of a lewd act upon a child, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), a felony. We strike the maximum confinement term and affirm in all other respects.

A modification decision.

Appellant Richard Allan Belville appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code[1] section 12021, subdivision (a); one count of carrying a loaded firearm, with two prior felony convictions, in violation of section 12031, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2)(A); and simple assault in violation of section 240. Appellant was sentenced to a four-year prison term, consisting of the two-year mid-term for the felon in possession count, and an additional year for each of the two prior felony convictions. Sentence on the carrying a loaded firearm conviction was stayed pursuant to section 654. Appellant was awarded 210 days of custody credits. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.