CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Craig Benidict Lee on three counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of failing to notify law enforcement of his address change while registered as a sex offender (§ 290.013). The trial court sentenced him to seven years eight months in prison and orally imposed various fines and fees, including a $160 court operations assessment, which the abstract of judgment lists as $130.

An amended information charged appellant Christopher John Kehoe with possession of more than 600 child pornography images portraying sexual sadism and masochism (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (c) ; counts 1 and 5); possession and transmission of child pornography (§ 311.1, subd. (a); counts 2 and 6); exhibiting a minor in pornography (§ 311.2, subd. (b); counts 3 and 7); possession of matter depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct (§ 311.11, subd. (a); counts 4 and 8); possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 9); and possession of psilocybin mushrooms (id., § 11377, subd. (a); count 10). It was further alleged that appellant was released from custody on bail or his own recognizance at the time of the commission of these offenses (§ 12022.1).

Dion Laroy Johnson, Sr., (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to four felony counts of second degree robbery with a prior serious felony enhancement and the trial court sentenced him to 10 years in state prison. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant and respondent, Kevin Dwayne Harris, pled guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child (counts 1 & 6; Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and two counts of lewd and lascivious acts by force upon a child (counts 2 & 7; § 288, subd. (b)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to 20 years’ imprisonment and awarded defendant a total of 265 days of custody and conduct credit for the time he spent wearing an electronic monitoring device (EMD).

Defendant and appellant Jed Arthur Quinn Green denied that he hit his live-in girlfriend Jessica Knox multiple times on her back with a baseball bat. The jury rejected that denial and found him guilty of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) with the special allegation that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon during the commission of the crime (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon other than a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to four years to be served in state prison.

Appellant Maria Alvarez Contreras is an undocumented person who is attempting to normalize her immigration status in the United States. In 1998, she was convicted of two counts of possession of drugs for sale. Her convictions occurred when she pled no contest to these charges in the Tulare County Superior Court. In the following years, she subsequently undertook efforts, through the filing of various motions, to expunge and obtain pardon for those convictions. The present appeal involves the trial court’s denial of her petition for rehabilitation and pardon pursuant to Penal Code section 4852.01 (the Rehabilitation). She claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Rehabilitation. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court’s order.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide a summary of defendant Jimmy Chavez’s offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.
A felony complaint deemed an information charged defendant with two counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) As to both counts, it was alleged that defendant personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).)

Defendant and appellant Daniel Cortez Bernal molested his three young nieces from 1991 until 2009. He was convicted of numerous sex offenses and evading a peace officer.

Following resentencing, Stephen Ricardo Banks appeals a judgment of conviction for first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) , assault with a semiautomatic firearm
(§ 245, subd. (b)), and felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), with a prior strike enhancement (§§ 667, subds. (b) - (i); 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d)) and firearm use and on-bail enhancements (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d); 12022.5, subd. (a); 12022.1). The trial court sentenced appellant to 81 years to life state prison.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) On June 1, 2017, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received no response from appellant.

This is the third appeal in this case. In 2011, defendant and appellant Adrian Andrino was convicted of unlawful oral copulation with a person under the age of 18 (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(1)) and lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 without force (§ 288, subd. (a)). The trial judge sentenced him to state prison for a total term of six years eight months. This court reversed and remanded the matter for resentencing on the ground that the trial judge erred in finding him ineligible for probation. (People v. Andrino (Sept. 17, 2013, E055371) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, another judge denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for the same term initially imposed. This court again reversed and remanded the matter for resentencing on the grounds that the judge’s sentencing choices and reasons were based on bias and/or improper aggravating factors. (People v. Andrino, supra, E060793.) On remand, Judge Dennis A. McConaghy denied probation and sentenced def

David Anthony Adams, Jr., and Nicholas Hempstead, convicted of the murder of Deon Davis, contend on appeal that two witnesses who testified against them were accomplices and that insufficient evidence corroborates their testimony. We disagree and affirm. We remand, however, for the limited purpose of allowing Adams and Hempstead the opportunity to make and preserve a record in preparation for eventual youth offender parole hearings.

Arthur Dixon (Husband) appeals a postjudgment order denying his request to modify the amount of monthly spousal support he must pay Heather Dixon (Wife). He contends we must reverse the order because the court did not consider and apply the factors in Family Code section 4320 (section 4320 factors). He additionally contends we must reverse the order because the court erred by imputing income to him after he decided to leave a higher paying management job for a significantly lower paying job as a commercial airline pilot. Finally, he contends we must reverse the order because the court failed to properly calculate Wife's actual income using a 51-week work year rather than a 48-week work year.
We conclude the record shows the court considered and applied the relevant section 4320 factors.

Defendant and appellant George Crawford challenges the trial court’s restraining order against him and in favor of plaintiff and respondent Lawrence Lilienthal. The parties have engaged in a multi year dispute regarding parking regulations and other issues in the small condominium complex where they both reside. Crawford contends that the trial court erred by delaying the hearing on the restraining order for 15 months while criminal charges against Lilienthal were pending in order to protect Lilienthal’s Fifth Amendment privilege from self-incrimination. Crawford also contends that there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision. We affirm.

Four-year-old T.P.'s grandmother, T.E. (Grandmother), appeals from an order denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, requesting court-ordered visitation with T.P. Grandmother contends that the court erred by denying her section 388 petition without a hearing because she made a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that visitation was in T.P.'s best interests. We reject Grandmother's arguments and affirm the juvenile court's order.