CA Unpub Decisions

When he was 15 years old, defendant Jarrell Marvell Tyes fired a .40-caliber handgun more than a dozen times at a group of teenagers outside of a house party in Del Paso Heights, killing a 16-year-old girl. He was tried as an adult. A jury convicted him of second degree murder and found that he personally discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 40 years to life in state prison (15 years to life for the murder, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement) and imposed other orders.
On appeal, defendant asserts (1) the trial court deprived him of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by instructing the jury with standard CALCRIM jury instructions on murder and manslaughter, and (2) his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of evidence purportedly connecting defendant to a firearm and ammunition that were unrelated to the charged offense. We shall affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Sua Say Cha of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with Si.X., a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a) -- counts one & two);[1] two counts of misdemeanor annoying of Y.L., a child under age 18 (§ 647.6, subd. (a) -- counts three & four); false imprisonment of So.X. (§ 236 -- count five); and attempted sexual battery of So.X. without unlawful restraint or skin contact (§§ 243.4, subd. (e)(1), 664 -- count six) as a lesser included offense of attempted sexual battery with unlawful restraint and skin contact (§§ 243.4, subd. (a), 664). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for eight years eight months, consisting of six years on count one, two years on count two, and eight months on count five. On counts three, four, and six, defendant was sentenced to county jail for time already served.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) counts five and six must be reversed because they were committed beyond the statute of limitations, (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to litigate a statute of limitations issue with respect to counts three and four, and (3) the trial court erred by failing to give the jury a unanimity instruction on counts three and four. Court shall affirm in part and reverse in part.

In February 1981 the Federal Bureau of Investigation received word that defendant Richard Edward Grant was living in the Trinity Alps Preserve.[1] It asked the Shasta County Sheriff's Office for assistance in arresting him on an outstanding warrant charging him with the murder of Bobby Floyd in San Bernardino County.
The next day, the sheriff's office was advised that a grave containing skeletal remains had been found on defendant's property in the Trinity Alps Preserve. After obtaining a search warrant, the sheriff's office located two graves. One contained the remains of Edward Lee Halbert, who had died from a bullet wound to the head. The other grave contained the remains of Frank DeVar Forman, who had suffered bullet wounds to the abdomen and head.
While being transported from San Bernardino County to Shasta County in November 1981, defendant admitted to officers that he had killed Halbert and Forman.

M.L., father of six-year-old minor L.L., appeals from the juvenile court's orders denying his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code) without an evidentiary hearing and terminating his parental rights. We affirm the judgment.
Facts and Proceedings
Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed a section 300 petition as to the minor, then in the care and custody of her mother, on October 6, 2008. The petition alleged that mother's mental instability placed the minor at risk. The petition also named father, listing him at mother's address.
Interviewed by the social worker, mother said father had never seen the minor, had not seen mother since 2002 (before the minor's birth), and now lived in the Bay Area.
At the initial hearing on October 7, 2008, the juvenile court removed the minor from mother's custody and offered preplacement services to both parents.

Appellant J.S., the mother of the minor I.S., appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) She contends there was a failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)(25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.), and there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the minor was not an Indian child. Court affirm the judgment.

R.M. and M.C. (appellants), the mother and father of C.C. (the minor), appeal from the juvenile court's orders terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further section references are to this code.) They contend there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the minor was adoptable. Court shall affirm the orders.

A modification decision.

Preliminarily, we note this case presents the unfortunate scenario our Supreme Court posited in People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684 (Smith): â€

Defendant Walter Dewey Price was convicted by a jury of first degree murder of his cellmate, Jamel Banks (Banks). (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated trial, the court found true allegations that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) He was sentenced to 55 years to life to run consecutive to the sentence he was then serving.

A jury found defendant Joseph Daniel Jones guilty of second degree robbery (count 1; Pen. Code, § 211)[1] and receiving or concealing stolen property (count 2; § 496, subd. (a)). The jury further found true gang enhancement allegations as to each crime. (§ 186.22, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to three years in prison on count 1 plus 10 years, to be served consecutively, for the related gang enhancement. He was also sentenced to two years for count 2 and three years for the related gang enhancement, both of which are to run concurrent to the sentences for count 1. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancements; and (2) defense counsel's failure to object to gang evidence deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant County of Riverside appeals from judgment in favor of plaintiffs Arthur Lewis, Jessie Lewis, Arthur Lewis II, and Nathaniel Cameron Lewis, following the jury trial of plaintiffs' wrongful death action. The jury found defendant to be 80 percent liable for the death of Arthur Lewis, Jr. (Bobby[1]), who was the son of Jessie Lewis and Arthur Lewis and father of children Arthur Lewis II and Nathaniel Cameron Lewis. Defendant contends (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict finding causation; (2) the trial court erroneously excluded the autopsy protocol; (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the award of $750,000 in damages to each parent; (4) the trial court erred in awarding Jessie Lewis and Arthur Lewis 100 percent of the damages when the jury assessed 20 percent liability to Bobby; and (5) the damages awarded to the children are excessive.

A jury found defendant Erick Martinez Enriquez guilty of the first degree murder of Juan Carlos Seoane. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189.)[1] The prosecution presented evidence that defendant's cohort, Ramon Cebreros, Jr., shot and killed Seoane, and that the murder was committed during the course of any one of three crimes directly perpetrated by defendant, namely, a robbery, an attempted robbery, or a residential burglary. The jury also found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed during a residential burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(G)) and that a principal, Cebreros, was armed with a firearm in the commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Cebreros was tried separately. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole plus one year for the firearm enhancement, and appeals.
Defendant claims insufficient evidence supports his felony-murder conviction. Specifically, he argues there is no evidence he intended to commit either theft or robbery when he and Cebreros entered Seoane's home. Instead, he claims the evidence showed only that he intended to convince Seoane to â€

Defendant, Santiago Luis, Jr., argues: 1) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to dismiss his 19 strike priors in the interest of justice; and 2) the 25 years-to-life prison sentence under the three strikes law is cruel and unusual punishment under these circumstances. As discussed below, Court affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff Allied Mechanical Products Division of Tower Industries, Inc. (Allied) appeals an order quashing service of summons and complaint in favor of defendant F. Zimmermann GmbH (Zimmermann) for lack of minimum contacts necessary for jurisdiction. Zimmermann is a German company that sold a used milling machine to Zimmerman Products Inc. (ZPI). ZPI had the machine shipped to California and sold it to Allied. After the machine was not delivered on time, was not up and running by the promised date, needed new spindles, and did not work because the two-axis milling head failed, Allied initiated this action. Zimmermann moved to quash service and the motion was granted.
Allied appeals, contending the trial court erred in granting the motion to quash because Zimmermann conducted business in California which was sufficient to establish minimum contacts under California's long arm statute. Court disagree and affirm.