CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendants Steven Berriozabal and Jorge Antonio Reyes of two counts of robbery ( 211)[1] with findings that they had committed the crimes to benefit a street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that each of them had personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). In addition, the jury convicted both defendants of one count of an unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). In a bench trial, the court found that each defendant had suffered a prior conviction as alleged pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced each defendant to a term of 33 years and 8 months. Defendants are members of the Avenues gang. Using a stolen car, they robbed two senior citizens in broad daylight in Avenues territory. They were apprehended several hours later in Avenues territory. The victims property was found on their persons and in the stolen car.

County of Kern operates the Kern County Medical Center (collectively Kern). Kern challenges the decision of respondent California Department of Health Services (Department) to reduce Kerns Medi-Cal reimbursements by $2,295,367. According to the Department, Kern should have been paid $925 per patient day instead of $1,125 per patient day for services provided to patients in its neonatal intensive care unit when the nurse to patient staffing ratios exceeded 1:1 or 1:2. When Kern pursued an administrative appeal, the Department upheld the legal basis for the reduction by citing Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center v. Bonta′ (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 237 (Sierra Vista). In addition, the Department found that the auditor properly calculated the nurse to patient staffing ratios by using Kerns assignment sheets. On appeal from the denial of its petition for writ of mandate, Kern contends that Sierra Vista was wrongly decided and should not be followed, and that the Departments methodology for calculating the nurse staffing ratios was arbitrary and capricious. Court find no error and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Jonathan Esteven Castro Barahona was convicted by jury of the second degree robbery of Spencer Blanco in violation of Penal Code section 211,[1]with the further finding that defendant personally used a handgun in the commission of the offense within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). Defendant was sentenced to 15 years in state prison and ordered to pay various fines and penalties, including restitution to the victim in the amount of $870.
In his timely appeal from the judgment, defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he used a firearm in the commission of the robbery, and the trial court abused its discretion by setting the amount of restitution without a hearing. Court affirm.

Defendants and appellants Fiona Clare Zahedi (Fiona) and Convent Limited (Convent) appeal the denial of their motion under English law for prevailing party attorney fees. Court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants fee motion, and thus Court affirm.

The jury convicted defendant Steven Perkins of three felonies against T.H.assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, 220, subd. (a)),[1] making criminal threats ( 422), and inflicting corporal injury to his childs parent ( 273.5, subd. (a))and three felonies against M.A.assault with intent to commit oral copulation ( 220, subd. (a)), forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)), and false imprisonment by violence ( 236).[2] The trial court imposed a total sentence of 21 years 8 months in state prison. In his timely appeal, defendant contends there was constitutionally insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Court affirm.

Appellant Jorge Almarez was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of murder in violation of Penal Code[1] section 187 and one count of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder in violation of sections 664 and 187. The jury found true the allegations that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (d) and used a firearm within the meaning of subdivision (b), and committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22. The jury also found true the allegation that a principal in the crimes personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). The trial court sentenced appellant to two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole for the murders plus life for the attempted murder. The court imposed a 25-years-to-life term on each count pursuant to section 12022.53. The court also imposed various enhancement terms pursuant to section 186.22.

Appellant D.M. (father) appeals from an order of the juvenile court sustaining a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,[1] awarding sole legal and physical custody of his daughter, Z.M. (minor), to her mother R.W. (mother), and terminating dependency jurisdiction. Father contends the juvenile court erred by dismissing counts alleged against mother, and that he was denied due process because he was not interviewed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) before the dismissal of the counts against mother and he was not allowed to question mother about the facts underlying those counts at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing. Court affirm the order.

Mehran A. Khamseh appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of making criminal threats (count 1; Pen. Code, 422)[1]and petty theft (count 2; 484, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted three petty theft convictions which were alleged in count 2 for petty theft with a prior ( 666/484, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to two years eight months state prison in case number 2008018851. The trial court found that appellant violated probation in four other cases and imposed an eight month consecutive term in case number 2004027609 and 16 month concurrent terms in case numbers 2004042064, 2005021996, 2005029081. Court affirm.

Appellants[1]petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel respondents Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (agency) and City of Los Angeles (city) to set aside the September 2007 design guidelines (design guidelines) for the North Hollywood redevelopment project area (project area). The trial court denied the requested relief and entered a judgment of dismissal. Finding no error, Court affirm.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney alleged in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] petition that minor T.T. (appellant) possessed a concealable firearm, a violation of Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a). Appellant moved to suppress the recovered firearm pursuant to section 700.1. After hearing testimony from one officer, and two minors who were with appellant at the time he was detained and searched, the juvenile court denied the suppression motion. Appellant admitted to the petitions allegation. The juvenile court sustained the petition against appellant and declared him a ward of the court. The juvenile court ordered a maximum term of confinement of three years and placed appellant on house arrest until the dispositional hearing, which took place approximately two months after the adjudication. At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ended the house arrest, placed appellant on probation, and released him to the custody of his mother.

C.D. appeals from an order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) following a finding he made a criminal threat in violation of Penal Code section 422. He was placed home on probation, and the court specified a maximum term of physical confinement of three years. He contends the court abused its discretion in refusing his request to reopen the evidentiary portion of the trial to allow him to testify, and that the court erred in specifying a maximum period of confinement. For the reasons stated, we strike the maximum period of confinement and otherwise affirm.

Following the denial of his Penal Code section 1538.5 evidence suppression motion, defendant, Ramon Isaias Reyes, pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2, both drug violations. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5, 11379, subd. (a).) Count 3, a charge of cocaine base sale or transportation in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), was dismissed on the prosecutions motion. Imposition of sentence was suspended as to count 1 and defendant was placed on three years formal probation on the condition that he serve 180 days in the county jail. The trial court neglected to either impose or suspend the imposition of sentence as to count 2. Defendant received credit for 85 days in presentence custody plus 42 days of conduct credit for a total presentence custody credit of 127 days. He was ordered to pay: a $20 court security assessment (Pen. Code, 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b); a $200 probation revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.44); and a single $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee. (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5, subd. (a).) In addition, the trial court ordered defendant to pay any probation services costs and attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the financial evaluator.

Appellant Dawn Patterson was found guilty, following a bench trial in 2001, of one count of arson of an inhabited structure in violation of Penal Code section 451, subdivision (b), one count of battery with injury on a police officer in violation of
section 243, subdivision (c)(2), and one count of assault on a peace officer in violation of sections 240 and 241. The court then found appellant not guilty of the offenses by reason of insanity. The court also found that she had not fully recovered her sanity as of the time of trial and that she was a danger to herself and others. The court committed appellant to the California Department of Mental Health for a period not to exceed nine years and eight months. On July 15, 2005, the court ordered appellant released from Patton State Hospital to the Los Angeles County Conditional Release Program ("CONREP") for outpatient treatment pursuant to section 1603, subdivision (a). Appellant was placed in treatment at the Gateways Satellite CONREP.

Ronald Barlish appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 211). He also admitted that on November 5, 1996, in case number SA023554, he was convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subd. (a) through (d) and 667, subd. (b) through (i)). Pursuant to his negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for six years, consisting of the middle term of three years, doubled by reason of his prior strike. He obtained a certificate of probable cause.