CA Unpub Decisions

One night, following a report of a vehicle stopped on the shoulder of a road, a police officer appropriately decided to check on the welfare of the driver, defendant Joshua Rosario. After pulling his patrol vehicle behind the stopped car and activating his emergency lights, the officer quickly determined the car was not disabled and Rosario was not in distress, but instead that he had stopped to drop off a friend. The officer nonetheless continued the encounter by asking for Rosario's identification, taking the license, and returning to his patrol vehicle to perform a records check.

Appointed counsel for defendant Roy Auburn Peck III asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

In December 1991, appellant William Everett Mundkowsky, then 24, was convicted of one count of perpetrating a lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subdivision (a) ) based on an incident involving a seven-year old in a shower. He was also convicted of one act of child molestation, based on a different incident with the same victim in a bedroom. (§ 647.6.) Mundkowsky was sentenced to six years in prison for the violation of section 288, subdivision (a), and also given a one-year sentence for the misdemeanor child molestation charge, running concurrently.

Edgar Lluncor (defendant) was convicted of five counts of sexual penetration by fraudulent representation of a professional purpose. (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (d)(4).) The jury found true the allegation that defendant committed the offenses against multiple victims. (§ 667.61, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to eight years in prison for the count 1 conviction and imposed concurrent eight-year terms for the remaining counts.

Appointed counsel for defendant Tenace Demond Knight 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.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. We find no arguable issues on appeal.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On May 6, 2009, defendant, a prisoner at Pleasant Valley State Prison, was found carrying a laundry bag that contained two inmate-manufactured sharpened weapons capable of causing serious bodily injury.

Defendant Armando Enrique Herrera was convicted by jury of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), a lesser included offense of the charged offense of first degree murder, personally discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count 2), and carrying a loaded firearm in public while actively participating in a criminal street gang (§ 25850, subd. (c)(3); count 3). With respect to counts 1 and 2, the jury also found true enhancements alleging defendant personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and he had committed the underlying offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)).

After a police officer attempted to pull over a pickup truck, a high-speed chase ensued. After the pickup crashed, officers found it empty. DNA on a baseball cap inside the pickup matched that of defendant Bennie Ray Ditto. An amended information charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, evading a peace officer, unlawfully driving a vehicle without consent, and receipt of stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c); Veh. Code, §§ 2800.2, subd. (a), 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).) A jury found defendant guilty on all counts. Sentenced to 21 years, four months plus 25 years to life, defendant appeals, arguing counsel performed ineffectively, the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, and sentencing error. We shall affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Manuel Alejandro Delarosa of carrying a loaded firearm in public while an active participant in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 25850, subds. (a), (c)(3); all further statutory citations are to this code, unless noted), possessing a concealed firearm while an active participant in a criminal street gang (§ 25400, subds. (a)(2), (c)(3)), street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true the enhancement allegation that Delarosa committed the first two and last of these offenses for the benefit of a gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).

Appointed counsel for defendant Miles Michael Kenneth Bondley has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

Appellant Luis Enrique Barradas was charged with six counts of lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1-6) and one count of felony child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (b); count 7). During the preliminary examination, Barradas decided to plead guilty. Under the plea agreement Barradas pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 3, and count 7 as a misdemeanor. The court agreed to a 10-year "lid" on any sentence. The remaining charges were dismissed.

Andres Rosales Arzola pleaded no contest to two counts of committing a forcible lewd act upon a child under 14 years of age under Penal Code section 288. The court sentenced him to 20 years in state prison. It ordered him to pay the victim, Jane Doe, $150,000 in restitution for noneconomic damages under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(F). Arzola's sole contention on appeal is that the court abused its discretion by failing to find facts, cite to reliable evidence, or establish the basis for its calculation of the award. We agree and therefore reverse.

Plaintiff Susan L. Light appeals from a judgment in favor of her former employer, Defendant Sacramento Regional Transit District (Regional Transit), after a bench trial on Light’s complaint for disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). On appeal, Light reargues her case without any coherent claim of error by the trial court that is adequately supported by legal authority or citations to the record. As it is not our function to simply reweigh the evidence, we will affirm.

Defendant and appellant Azizolah Javahery (Javahery) appeals a postjudgment order that partially denied his motion to amend a 2012 judgment obtained by plaintiffs and respondents Soraya Javaheri-Leiter (Soraya) and Simin Javahery Khojastegan (Simin) (collectively, Plaintiffs).
For the reasons discussed below, we perceive no error in the trial court’s ruling, which effected only a minor change to correct an obvious clerical error. The trial court properly denied Javahery’s additional request that the judgment be amended to provide that punitive damages were awarded on the entire complaint rather than only on the third and fourth causes of action for fraud. The postjudgment order is affirmed.

Minor appeals from a juvenile court judgment finding true allegations he committed two robberies while personally using a deadly or dangerous weapon. He contends we must reverse the judgment because there was insufficient evidence to support the court's findings due to discrepancies in the victim's prehearing statements and hearing testimony describing the robber with the gun.
We conclude the evidence, while inconsistent in some respects, is nonetheless sufficient to support the court's findings. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.