CA Unpub Decisions

Oswaldo Conde (Ozzy/victim) was found murdered inside his home in the early morning hours of October 6, 2003. After an investigation, police charged defendant with Ozzys murder, based upon circumstantial evidence. In her appeal, defendant advances several arguments: There was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, the trial court did not apply the right standard in ruling on her motion for new trial, Evidence Code section 1109[2]is unconstitutional, the trial court erroneously admitted defendants prior acts of domestic violence, CALJIC No. 2.50.02 is legally defective and the exculpatory results of defendants polygraph examination were improperly barred. Court reject all of defendants claims and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of corporal injury to a cohabitant/former cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)),[1]during which he inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subds. (a) & (e)), second degree murder ( 187, subd. (a)), robbery ( 211), during which he used a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and inflicted serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), during which he inflicted serious bodily injury, unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 18 ( 261.5, subd. (c)), sexual penetration with a foreign object of a person under the age of 18 ( 289, subd. (h)) and two counts of oral copulation of a person under the age of 18 ( 288a, subd. (b)(1)). In bifurcated proceedings, he admitted having suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prison term. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for 12 years[2]plus 15 years to life and appeals, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, instructing the jury and sentencing him. He also contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct. We reject all his contentions and affirm his convictions and the sentence the court has, thus far, imposed. We remand the matter to allow the trial court to impose a term based on the finding that defendant suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prison sentence. Court further direct the trial court to correct errors in the existing abstract of judgment and minutes of the sentencing hearing and to complete a new abstract and minutes for the remanded sentencing hearing.

Defendant pled no contest to one count of transportation of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a).) In return, the court placed her on 36 months of Proposition 36 probation. After the filing of four subsequent petitions for revocation of probation containing various and repeated allegations of probation violations, all of which defendant admitted, the court revoked her probation and sentenced her to the aggravated term of four years in state prison. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Jonathon Patzer appeals from his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a)(1)), and failure to obey the lawful order of a peace officer (Veh. Code, 2800). Defendant contends: (1) the trial courts instruction to the jury on the requisite intent for assault with a deadly weapon was erroneous and unconstitutional; (2) the trial courts failure to give a necessity instruction rendered the trial unfair; (3) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to define lawful order in its instructions; and (4) cumulative instructional error warrants a reversal. Court find no reversible error and we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Kenneth Pine appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent John Caranci in the underlying probate proceeding. Court affirm.

Defendant Sergio Navarro Rodriguez appeals his conviction on one count of continuous sexual abuse of his 13-year-old daughter and one count of aggravated sexual assault on the same victim. He raises numerous grounds for reversal, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He asserts the same claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We will vacate his conviction for continuous sexual abuse, in that conviction on both that count and on the count of aggravated sexual assault violates Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (c). Court find his other contentions lacking in merit, and will otherwise affirm his conviction and deny his habeas corpus petition.

A jury found defendant and appellant Raynard Vincent Darrett guilty of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(C)(i), count 1)[1]and failing to update his annual sex offender registration ( 290, subd. (a)(1)(D),[2]count 2). Defendant admitted he had a prior strike conviction for committing a lewd act upon a child in violation of section 288, subdivision (a) ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and stipulated that such conviction required lifetime sex offender registration. The trial court sentenced him to a total term of four years in state prison, which consisted of two years on count 2, doubled because of the strike conviction, plus a 180-day county jail term on count 1, which the court ordered to run concurrent to the term on count 2. On appeal, defendant contends that 1) the trial court gave an overly broad jury instruction on count 2, which relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove he was a resident of California, and 2) there was insufficient evidence to prove he willfully failed to register as a sex offender in counts 1 and 2. In evaluating this case, we discovered other issues, which we asked the parties to address in supplemental briefing. Court will address those issues along with the issues raised by defendant. Ultimately, Court reverse the conviction in count 2 for insufficient evidence. However, Court affirm defendants conviction in count 1.

Plaintiff Carl Polage owns residential real property located in the City of Ontario and subject to flooding. The trial court granted Ontarios summary judgment motion on Polages complaint for inverse condemnation, dangerous condition of public property, and nuisance. Polage appeals. Court affirm the judgment on the grounds Polages suit is time barred.

A juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that Defendant and Appellant R.U. (minor) committed a battery upon an officer (Pen. Code,[1] 243, subd. (b), count 1) and resisted, obstructed, or delayed an officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1), count 2). A juvenile court found the allegation in count 2 to be true, but found the allegation in count 1 to be not true. The court declared minor a ward and placed him on probation in the custody of his parents. On appeal, minor contends there was insufficient evidence to support the courts true finding in count 2. Court affirm.

Following a jury trial, defendant Willie Lavern Hickman was convicted of attempted murder and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. He appeals, contending that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on his theories of perfect or imperfect self-defense or defense of others, and improperly refused to permit impeachment of the victim. Court find no error and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Thomas Mack Lane was charged with receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,[1] 496, subd. (a), count 1) and committing a theft-related offense with a prior theft-related conviction ( 666, count 2). He moved to suppress the prosecutions evidence against him, contending that it was the product of an unlawful detention. ( 1538.5.) Defendants motion to suppress was heard concurrently with the preliminary hearing. The motion was denied. Subsequently, defendant filed a renewed motion to suppress. The trial court denied that motion as well. A jury trial commenced, but the court declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Defendant later pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, and the court dismissed count 1 and granted probation for a period of three years.
On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in denying his renewed motion to suppress evidence since the police were not justified in detaining him; in the alternative, he argues the detention was unlawfully prolonged. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Ahmodn Jamaal Thomas appeals from his conviction of lewd acts on a person under the age of 16 by a person at least 10 years older (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (c) (count 4))[1]and resisting an executive officer in the performance of his duties ( 69 (counts 5 & 6)). Defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on count 4,(2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the impact of the relationship between defendants intoxication and his ability to form the required intent in count 4, and (3) in the alternative, he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request such an instruction. Court find no error, and Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from a jury verdict finding he was a mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO), and extending his civil commitment for an additional two years. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6316, et seq.) He argues that instructional error eased the prosecutions burden of proof. Court affirm.

Russell Branton, Inc., doing business as RBI Framing (RBI), sued its employee, Gerald Castle, for fraud, breach of contract, and related causes of action. After a jury trial and posttrial motions, the court entered judgment in favor of RBI in the amount of $656,012.88, including punitive damages, attorneys fees, and costs.
Castle now appeals. Court affirm the judgment on the merits and based on the inadequacy of Castles appellate brief.