CA Unpub Decisions

Nicandro Maciel appeals from a judgment imposed upon his guilty plea to evading a peace officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)). His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
Defendant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the sentencing. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The judgment is affirmed.

Coutrell Plair appeals his convictions for murder and attempted murder. He argues the trial court unreasonably limited the length and format of voir dire and erroneously denied several challenges for cause to prospective jurors. He contends the trial court erred in refusing to exclude a record of text messages sent from a pager retrieved from the crime scene. He also argues the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that his testimony could be impeached with a prior juvenile adjudication and in precluding him from calling four attorneys as witnesses at trial. He contends the prosecutor committed misconduct during summation. Finally, he argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider whether a certain witness was his accomplice, and if so, to view that witnesss testimony with caution.
Court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire. Only one of the challenged jurors should have been removed for cause, and appellant was not prejudiced because that juror was peremptorily challenged. The text messages were admissible because they fell within the scope of a lawful search warrant. The court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that appellants prior conviction was admissible under Evidence Code section 352, nor did it abuse its discretion in ruling that the attorneys testimony was inadmissible under that statute. None of the challenged prosecutorial acts constituted prejudicial misconduct. Finally, the facts of the case required the trial court to instruct the jury about accomplice testimony. Thus, Court affirm.

Michelle Fateh appeals from a judgment of nonsuit on her complaint for malicious prosecution in favor of respondent Abbas Paymard on the ground that there was no favorable termination of the underlying lawsuit. She also appeals from the court's denial of her Pitchess motion and her motion to tax expert witness fees. Court affirm the judgment, except to modify the award of costs.

A jury convicted appellant Rickey Glen Luster of the second degree murder of his wife, who was found beaten, strangled, and naked on the floor of their home. Luster challenges his conviction on the grounds of instructional error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and violation of the Confrontation Clause. First, he contends that CALCRIM No. 220 misstates the reasonable doubt standard and dilutes the prosecutions burden of proof. Second, he argues that CALCRIM Nos. 375 and 852 prevented the jury from considering for the defense theory of the case the victims conduct in an earlier domestic violence incident. He also asserts that these instructions erroneously told the jury that the preponderance of evidence standard applied to the defenses use of the prior incident. Third, Luster contends that CALCRIM No. 852 violated due process by permitting the jury to convict him based on propensity evidence alone. Fourth, he argues that his trial attorney mishandled his objections to the prosecutions introduction of the victims earlier statements to police. His lawyer, Luster says, should have argued that a 911 call showed the victims later statements to police to be insufficiently trustworthy for the hearsay exception of Evidence Code section 1370, subdivision (a) to apply. Finally, Luster challenges the trial courts ruling that he forfeited by wrongdoing his Confrontation Clause objection to the admission of the victims statements to the police during the earlier domestic violence incident.
Court conclude that CALCRIM No. 220 properly articulates the reasonable doubt standard. The use of CALCRIM Nos. 375 and 852 did not prevent the jury from considering the victims conduct in the prior incident to support the defenses arguments, nor did it mislead the jury about how to apply the preponderance of evidence standard. The instructions plainly were limited in their application to the prosecutions use of the prior incident evidence. Nor did CALCRIM No. 852 allow the jury to convict Luster based on propensity evidence; the instruction explicitly told jurors that evidence of prior domestic violence was insufficient to prove guilt and that proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of an offense was required. Defense counsels failure to give the court the recording of the victims 911 call during the earlier domestic violence incident and to argue that Evidence Code section 1370 did not apply was not prejudicial and therefore did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The911 recording did not cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the victims statements to police on that prior occasion. Finally, the trial court correctly held that, by murdering the victim, Luster forfeited his Confrontation Clause objection to the admission of her earlier statements to the police.

Paul R. Gurian appeals from a restraining order directing him not to harass John Hart Isaac. Court affirm.

Defendant, Adrian Salvador Mariscal, appeals from his convictions for first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a)) and firearm possession by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and the jurors findings that he personally used a firearm causing death ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), (e)(1)) and the killing was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (186.22, subd. (b).) Defendant argues the trial court improperly: excluded evidence; admitted autopsy photographs; and denied his dismissal motion. The Attorney General argues an additional court security fee should have been imposed. Court affirm as modified.

Carlos G. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed a first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) He was placed home on probation. He contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the adjudication and, in the alternative, that the burglary must be deemed to be second degree. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the order of wardship.

A jury found Praise Nnamdi Odiakosa guilty of nine counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211),[1]two counts of attempted second degree robbery ( 664/211), and one count of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)). Court reverse the count of receiving stolen property. In all other respects Court affirm.

Jacob Uri Mayerfeld and the Rav Tov Committee To Aid New Immigrants appeal from a trial court order denying their petition to compel arbitration. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial courts determination that appellants waived their right to arbitrate the dispute at issue. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Raymond Allen Hurd appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11351). He was sentenced to prison for the low term of two years plus an additional eight months, consecutive, on an unrelated case and filed an appeal based on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence made pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. The judgment is affirmed.

Angelica C. (mother) appeals the denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1]motion to reinstate reunification services with her sons Dominic B.[2]and V.B. She argues she received treatment for the mental illness that precipitated the juvenile courts involvement with her family, and she argues reunification would be in her sons best interest. Court conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that her circumstances had not changed and that reunification would not be in her sons best interest. Thus, Court affirm.

Royal Palms LLC. (Royal Palms), a mobilehome park, appeals a judgment which denied, in part, its petition for writ of administrative mandamus against respondents City of Oxnard (City) and the City of Oxnard Mobilehome Park Rent Review Board (the Board). In its mandamus action Royal Palms claimed the Board's decision prevented it from raising rents for its mobilehome park tenants to achieve a fair return. Court conclude: 1) substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Royal Palms did not show that its 1982 base year rents were below market rates, 2) the court properly vacated the Board's awards of interest to Royal Palms on a retroactive rent increase and on capital improvements, and 3) it correctly remanded these issues for further Board proceedings. Court affirm.

Michael O'Shay Williams appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and admission that he has suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b) (i); 1170.12, subds. (a) (d).)[1] Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to 32 months state prison and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5, subd. (a)), a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8), and ordered to submit to DNA testing ( 296). Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable cause which was denied by the trial court. ( 1237.5, subd. (a).) In the request for certificate of probable cause, appellant claimed that he did not receive a competency hearing, that he was not expressly advised of certain rights, and that that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

Angela M. appeals from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to her twin daughters, Tianna and Kianna. Court affirm.