CA Unpub Decisions

In a previous appeal, this court affirmed defendant’s judgment of conviction but modified his sentence to remove two sentence enhancements. This reduced his determinate and indeterminate sentences by six years each. We ordered the clerk of the superior court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment. (People v. Rivera (Nov. 30, 2016, E063917) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant appeals from the superior court’s order correcting the abstract of judgment. We affirm.

Defendant Regina Rico appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (a) – count 1) and second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b) – count 2). The trial court found that two prior prison term allegations were true. The trial court imposed a total term of four years and ordered defendant to serve two years in county jail and two years of mandatory supervision. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the prosecutor to introduce still images taken from the video of a prior incident that had been excluded; and (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the still images. The judgment is affirmed.

In 1981, Robert Manning suffered two separate misdemeanor convictions for each of which he was sentenced to a few months in jail and granted probation. From 1987 to 2012, he suffered seven felony convictions for drug and firearms offenses, and served seven separate prison terms. On February 15, 2012, he was arrested for possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) On September 16, 2012, while the possession charge was pending, he was arrested for felony evading a police officer in a reckless manner. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).) Manning was convicted on that charge and served almost two years in prison, while his possession charge was abated. After his release, Manning pleaded no contest to the possession charge and was sentenced to five years in prison. The trial court suspended the sentence and ordered Manning to serve three years of probation.

Oscar G. Machado (Machado) appeals from an order denying his petition for recall of sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18.
On October 26, 1998, in an amended information, the People charged Machado with second degree burglary of a vehicle (§ 459; count 1) and first degree burglary of a residence (§ 459; count 2). In addition, the People alleged that, in 1991, Machado had suffered two convictions of a serious or violent felony—robbery (§ 211).
On October 28, 1998, a jury found Machado guilty of both burglary counts. On December 18, 1998, the trial court sentenced Machado to life imprisonment plus 30 years.

Jermaine Johnson appeals from the judgment after the trial court found he was a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.) The commitment offense was for residential burglary and involved a forcible entry in which appellant kicked open the door and entered holding a knife. The trial court found that the offense satisfied the threat of force or violence criterion of section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) or (Q). We affirm.

Pursuant to an agreement, Sonya Devon Howard pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court sentenced her to 16 months in county jail. Because the trial court and the prosecutor misled Howard into believing she could challenge her conviction on appeal, however, she is entitled to withdraw her plea. Therefore, we reverse.

Appointed counsel for defendant Brian Andrew Hill has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We note a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment and will order a correction of the abstract to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

Appellant Amos Hason challenges his convictions for carrying a loaded firearm with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a)) and possession of a zip gun (Pen. Code, § 33600), contending they were based on evidence from an illegal search. We reject his challenge and affirm the judgment.

Jonathan Gonzalez was convicted of murdering Brandon Tritschler (Pen. Code, § 187). On appeal, Gonzalez argues that the pattern jury instruction on the crime of murder is legally insufficient and that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to strike his prior strike conviction. We affirm the judgment as modified.

A jury convicted Eric Philip Franklin of second degree (nonresidential) robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); all statutory citations are to the Penal Code). Defendant appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. Because our independent review of the record discloses no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.

Noaese Falaniko appeals from the order entered by the superior court following the remand for retrial of four counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); counts 2, 3, 6, & 7). At a trial setting conference on February 7, 2017, the prosecutor declined to retry any of the reversed counts, and the trial court dismissed the charges in the interests of justice. The superior court ordered the sentences on the counts of conviction that had been affirmed on appeal (counts 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, & 10) to remain as previously imposed for an aggregate indeterminate sentence of 170 years to life.

On April 17, 2015, defendant Alejandro Romero Espinoza was sentenced in four separate criminal cases arising out of convictions for assault, conspiracy to commit assault, weapons charges and drug possession. He advances four claims on appeal relating to three of those four cases.
In 2011, defendant was charged in the first case with carrying a concealed firearm. (Former Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (a)(1).) , He pled no contest to the charge, and the trial court sentenced him to 180 days in jail and placed him on probation for three years.

A jury convicted defendant Palmer Beverly of being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count six), two counts of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts four & five), and three counts of first degree burglary (§ 459; counts one, two, & three). Defendant admitted two prior felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), two strike priors (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
At sentencing, the prosecutor dismissed one of the strike priors. The court imposed an aggregate term of 24 years 8 months.
Defendant appeals. He contends (1) his federal constitutional rights were violated when the prosecutor refused to allow him to accept the plea offer of 12 years because it was a package deal which codefendant Fulbright refused and (2) his sentence for possession of ammunition should have been stayed (§ 654) because he harbored only one intent in possessing

Defendant Bub Tahchahlah Bamford pleaded no contest to felony driving under the influence (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550.5) with a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) in case No. 13F2842, felony failure to appear (FTA) (§ 1320), subd. (b)) with an on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1) in case No. 13F2661, and 12 felony FTA counts in case No. 14F3951. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation. When probation was later revoked, the trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year eight-month state prison term.
On appeal, defendant contends the on-bail enhancement should have been stricken because the underlying felony was subsequently reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. He also contends that those felony FTA offenses based on felonies that were subsequently reduced to misdemeanors pursuant to section 1170.18, should have been reduced to misdemeanors as well. We shall affirm.