CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and respondent, Hasani Villa, was charged with numerous crimes and enhancements arising from the murder of James Mesa. He was held to answer on all the charges following the preliminary hearing. Defendant then filed a Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside the information and the superior court granted the motion.[1] The People appeal.

This is an appeal from a felony conviction. Appellant Frank Wright III contends the court erred in denying his motion to quash a search warrant. We modify and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Timothy Michael Groux was convicted of committing oral copulation on his prison cellmate. He was sentenced, as a â€

A jury convicted appellant Robert Anthony Lopez of murder in the shooting death of Daniel Morales, assault with a deadly weapon upon Gonzalo Villanueva, and of active participation in a criminal street gang. The jury also found true a gang enhancement and a gun enhancement. Lopez contends several errors require reversal of his convictions, including (1) denial of his motion to sever his trial from that of codefendant Manuel Domingo Hernandez, (2) failure to allow him to testify in his own behalf, (3) restriction of cross-examination of Hernandez, (4) instructional error, (5) improper comment by Hernandez's counsel on Lopez's failure to testify, (6) prosecutorial misconduct, and (7) cumulative error. We address each of these contentions and conclude they lack merit or, alternatively, any error was not prejudicial. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant pled guilty on September 15, 2006 to assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) Two other counts of criminal threats (§ 422) and battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)) were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. At sentencing, the court imposed but suspended a sentence of four years in state prison and granted defendant 36 months of supervised probation, subject to various terms and conditions, including 365 days in jail. Thereafter, defendant's probation was modified on June 8, 2007, July 18, 2007, August 23, 2007, October 26, 2007,

After a jury trial, defendant and appellant Alonzo E. Higuera was acquitted of charges of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)),[1] sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)), and sexual penetration by force (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant filed a motion for a finding of factual innocence, pursuant to section 851.8. The trial court denied the motion.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

On July 22, 2010, an information charged defendant and appellant Gerardo Almaguer (defendant) with (1) felony possession of a handgun by a felon under Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1); (2) felony possession of ammunition by a felon under Penal Code section 12316, subdivision (b)(1); (3) felony possession of methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a); and (4) misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia used for smoking a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11364. The information also alleged that defendant had served a prior prison term and did not remain free for a period of five years under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Because of the limited nature of the issue which is before us, we provide a less detailed factual and procedural history than is customary in dependency cases. And, because this appeal pertains solely to Edward B.'s contention that he qualifies as a presumed father, we omit any discussion pertaining to the mother or to the other children who are also the subjects of the dependency proceedings.

The following facts are taken from the allegations of the operative complaint, supplemented by matters of which the trial court took judicial notice.
To gain an advantage in a custody dispute, M.C. (the mother) falsely accused Deoca of injecting her son, C.H. (the son), then aged 17, with anabolic steroids. At the mother's urging, the son made additional false statements to the police.
Brandi Swan is a detective with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. In January 2008, she asked to interview Deoca. He agreed, but only if his attorney could be present. This made Swan angry. To retaliate against him, Swan filed a police report recommending that Deoca be charged with two felonies -- furnishing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)).
Swan's police report falsely stated that Deoca had injected the son with anabolic steroids. It also falsely stated that the injections had left the son with â€

Defendant Ryan Anthony Barba contends the trial court erred when it recalculated his sentence to apply the increased conduct credits provided by the amendments to Penal Code[1] section 4019 only to the days he spent in custody on and after January 25, 2010, the effective date of the amendments. We modify the judgment to award additional credits for days defendant was in custody prior to that date and affirm.

On February 20, 2009, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Randy Lynn Romine (defendant) with felony possession of a controlled substance with a firearm under Health and Safety Code section 11370, subdivision (a) (count 1); and felony possession for sale of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 3).[1]
On the same date, defendant pled not guilty to all counts. On March 2, 2009, however, defendant pled guilty to count 3. On motion by the People, the trial court dismissed count 1.
On March 30, 2009, following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years of supervised probation. In addition to the regular terms and conditions of probation, defendant agreed to cooperate with the probation officer in a plan of rehabilitation and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer; provide the probation officer with the place of residence; inform the probation officer about cohabitants and pets and give written notice to the probation officer 24 hours prior to any change; not associate with known convicted felons; and not associate with any persons known to be illegal users or sellers of controlled substances.

Appellant Eugenia Yu was married to respondent Kaming Li. In their divorce proceeding, they entered into a stipulated judgment that required Li to pay family support payments to Yu. Approximately two years later, Li sought to modify the judgment to reduce the support obligation. The trial court granted the request. Yu appeals. For the reasons that follow, we reject her arguments and affirm the court's order.

Jose Alberto Villasenor (defendant) appeals as error the trial court's decision to allow the prosecution to impeach him with an earlier misdemeanor conviction. We will affirm.

Plaintiff, Geneva Legrone, injured her ankle during a work-related activity and was seen by Thomas Mogensen, M.D. (Mogensen), at Central Occupational Medical Providers (COMP), the provider of medical care for injured workers employed by the City of Perris. Mogensen initially refused to order an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and thus failed to promptly diagnose an Achilles tendon tear, causing the injury to become worse. A month after sustaining the injury, an MRI was finally ordered, and plaintiff had to undergo surgery to repair the injury. In October 2006, plaintiff was terminated from her employment after making a worker's compensation claim for the injury. In January 2008, plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint against--among other parties--defendant Mogensen and COMP.[1] The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was untimely under the one-year statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5), which was granted by the trial court, resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appeals from that judgment. We affirm.