Skip to content
Name: People v. Ferenz (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1032
Case #: H049430
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/26/2024
Subsequent History: ordered published 2/21/2024

Police reports, district attorney investigative reports, interview transcripts, preliminary hearing transcripts, and prior conviction records were properly attached to prosecutor’s statement of view pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.01. Defendant pleaded no contest to rape of an unconscious person, forcible rape, and dissuading a witness and was sentenced to state prison. Prior to sentencing, the prosecutor submitted a statement of view, which included the above-refenced attachments, noting the materials could be relevant to assess defendant for possible treatment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). On appeal, defendant argued the attachments impermissibly went beyond the scope of the crimes committed, contained…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Villegas (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 253
Case #: A164370
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/15/2023

Counsel was not ineffective in failing to seek exclusion of defendant’s second statement to police where defendant waived his right to remain silent and then failed to clearly assert this right during questioning before making incriminating statements. Defendant was questioned as to sexual offenses against two alleged victims, waived his Miranda rights, made incriminating statements, and was arrested. Police then learned of a third alleged victim and questioned defendant a second time a couple days later. He waived his Miranda rights a second time and admitted making a “mistake,” but said he would not say anything else. Police detailed the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rodriguez
Case #: C087974
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/19/2021

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence of a special circumstance involving a murder committed during the course of a violent crime spree, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances of the ongoing criminal conspiracy, not just a single event that occurred during that crime spree. Defendant and codefendant Gamboa were charged with multiple offenses, as well as two special circumstance murders, related to a two-day crime spree in which they robbed numerous victims, killing two of them. On appeal, defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to prove the special circumstance against him as to the killing of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanchez
Case #: B291127
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/15/2019

Prosecutor did not misstate intent element of charged offense, so defense counsel's failure to object could not constitute deficient performance. Defendant, a 33-year-old woman, French kissed, groped, and kissed the breasts of a female family member a little before and after the girl's 14th birthday. A jury convicted defendant of committing lewd and lascivious acts (Pen. Code, § 288), and the trial court placed her on probation with a suspended eight-year prison sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the prosecutor's argument during rebuttal that section 288 does not require "intent to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gutierrez
Case #: D073103
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/04/2019

By failing to object to imposition of the maximum restitution fine, defendant forfeited his claim that the trial court erred by failing to consider his ability to pay fines and fees. Following Gutierrez's conviction of several felonies, the trial court ordered that he pay the maximum restitution fine of $10,000 and found that he had the ability to pay other fees. Gutierrez did not object. He also did not request that the trial court consider his ability to pay when he was resentenced and the fines and fees were reimposed following a remand in his first appeal. In a petition…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Johnson
Case #: A149394
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 05/10/2019

Defendant's fines and fees challenge under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, was not forfeited, but any error in imposing the assessments was harmless because the record showed an ability to pay. Johnson was convicted of a felony offense and sentenced to eight years in prison. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $40 court security fee, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. Defendant appealed, arguing the court should reverse imposition of the assessments and stay the restitution fine until the People proved his ability to pay. Held: Affirmed. Under People…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Frandsen
Case #: B280329
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 04/04/2019

Second degree felony murder rule is not unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States (2015) _U.S._[135 S.Ct. 2551]. Frandsen and several others held two victims hostage at Huang's house because they believed the victims had stolen marijuana from Huang. Frandsen and Huang were the only ones present when the victims were killed. After his third trial, Frandsen was convicted of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to 19 years to life in prison. He appealed, arguing the second degree felony murder rule is unconstitutionally vague. Held: Affirmed. In Johnson, the U.S. Supreme…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rodriguez
Case #: B287544
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/23/2019

Defendant, who was sentenced to prison and presumed unable to pay attorney's fees, did not forfeit his challenge to order for reimbursement of attorney's fees (Pen. Code, § 987.8) where he did not receive notice as required by statute. A jury found Rodriguez guilty of second degree robbery and he admitted 10 prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced him to nine years in prison and ordered him to reimburse the county for $1,185 in attorney's fees for his public defender (Pen. Code, § 987.8) without evaluating his ability to pay. Counsel did not object. Rodriguez appealed, challenging the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bipialaka
Case #: B285656
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 04/17/2019

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions for assault with a deadly weapon where he accelerated his vehicle towards another occupied car with the intent to frighten its occupants. After ingesting methamphetamine and alcohol, defendant led police on a car chase during which he targeted another car in an intersection, running the red light and accelerating as though intending to hit the other vehicle. The other driver braked, defendant swerved, and no collision occurred. He maintained on appeal that because he only intended to "freak out" the passengers in the other car, his conviction for using his car to commit an assault…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Castellano
Case #: B286317
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 03/26/2019

Appellant's argument under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 was not forfeited for failure to object in the trial court. Castellano was convicted of a felony drug offense and sentenced to prison. The court imposed a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), subject to an additional state court construction penalty (Gov. Code, § 70372), a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a suspended $300 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). Castellano…

View Full Summary