CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Larry David Hewitt appeals from an order revoking his post release community supervision (PCRS) status. We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and conclude that no arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.
On June 24, 2016, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition to revoke defendant’s PCRS status, alleging he had failed to report to his probation officer on June 8, 2016 as instructed. Supervision was preliminarily revoked on June 29, 2016 and an arrest warrant was issued. Defendant was taken into custody, and denied the petition’s allegations.

James L. Henderson appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The jury found a personal firearm use allegation not true (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Appellant admitted a prior robbery conviction as a prior serious and/or violent felony under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)), as a prior serious or violent felony pursuant to sections 667.5, subdivision (c)(19) and 1170, subdivision (h)(3), and as a prior serious felony pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1).

Defendant and appellant Kameron Jene Hamilton responded to an online advertisement offering sexual services that the victim had posted. During their encounter at the victim’s hotel room, Hamilton stabbed her with a knife 59 times, killing her.
A jury found Hamilton guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), acquitting him of first degree murder. The jury found true the allegation that he used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court imposed a sentence of 15 years to life on the second degree murder conviction, plus one year for the enhancement.

In this appeal, counsel for defendant has filed a declaration stating he has reviewed the record in this case and decided to file a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. He has written defendant and advised her of this conclusion. Counsel told defendant she may file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues Gray believes should be addressed. More than 30 days have passed and no supplemental brief has been received. We have reviewed the record and conclude the judgment should be affirmed. This is a timely appeal.

Defendant James A. Gorman III appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.18 application to redesignate his conviction for grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)) from a felony to a misdemeanor. He contends the trial court erred in finding his crime ineligible for resentencing. We agree, reverse, and remand with directions to grant the application.

A jury convicted appellant Gustavo Patino Gonzalez of second-degree robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. Appellant later pled no contest to a count of assault with a firearm on which the jury had previously deadlocked, and admitted allegations he had suffered a prior strike and a prior serious felony conviction. Appellant was sentenced to a total prison term of 15 years for his current convictions. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 8. He further contends the court’s denial of his new trial motion resulted in a prejudicial denial of his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law, requiring reversal of his jury convictions of second-degree robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Larenzo Jamar Giden has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and 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.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant David Lee Fernandez appeals from orders denying his postjudgment motions to modify restitution fines that were imposed following his convictions in three prior cases. His court-appointed counsel filed a brief raising no legal issues and requested that this court conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). However, since defendant has appealed from nonappealable orders, we must dismiss the appeal. (People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208 (Turrin).)

Appointed counsel for defendant Amber Marie Fallucci 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 her 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. Having reviewed the record, we remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike or impose a prior prison term enhancement. In all other respects, we affirm.
On February 8, 2014, Maceo Garcia and his girlfriend stopped by his house to check the mail. Garcia had temporarily moved out of the house while he was remodeling it. He saw a car parked outside his house, and then he saw a man coming out of his house carrying a laundry basket. The man got into the car and drove away. Garcia took down the license plate number and attempted to follow the car.

On October 27, 2016, the trial court held a preliminary hearing in the case against defendant and appellant Sandy Jazmin Davalos. Briefly, the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing established that on October 1, 2016, two
Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs saw two persons sleeping in a vehicle parked on Pacific Coast Highway at a time of night when no parking is allowed. Because sleeping in a car on a roadway is a violation of the Malibu Municipal Code, one of the deputies approached the vehicle.

A Kings County jury found Jerome Lee Cross guilty of felony possession of an alcoholic beverage while being held in the Kings County jail. (Pen. Code, § 4573.8.) On appeal, Cross contends the superior court abused its discretion in failing to strike a prior strike conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero)) and failed to fully consider his request for relief under Proposition 47. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Roberto Cortez of criminal threats, possession of a firearm by a felon, and simple assault. On appeal, defendant contends his criminal threats did not cause the victim to be in sustained fear for his safety, and the court erred by failing to instruct on the lesser-included offense of attempted criminal threats. We affirm.

Jill was employed by NPG, Inc. (NPG). NPG was owned by Jeffrey S. Nelson (Jeffrey) and Sharon J. Nelson (Sharon). Manuel is Jill’s husband. Jill embezzled from NPG. Jeff confronted Jill about her embezzlement. In 2006, defendants and NPG entered into an agreement (the Agreement). In the Agreement, defendants promised to give NPG $151,400, and NPG promised to release defendants “from any and all claims, demands, liens, actions, suits, causes of action, obligations, controversies, debts, costs, expenses, damages, judgments, orders, and liabilities of whatever kind or nature in law, equity, or otherwise, whether now known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, and whether or not concealed or hidden, which have existed or may have existed, or which do exist or which hereafter can, shall or may exist, based on any facts, events or omissions occurring from the beginning of existence.”

Jill was employed by NPG, Inc. (NPG). NPG was owned by Jeffrey S. Nelson (Jeffrey) and Sharon J. Nelson (Sharon). Manuel is Jill’s husband. Jill embezzled from NPG. Jeff confronted Jill about her embezzlement. In 2006, defendants and NPG entered into an agreement (the Agreement). In the Agreement, defendants promised to give NPG $151,400, and NPG promised to release defendants “from any and all claims, demands, liens, actions, suits, causes of action, obligations, controversies, debts, costs, expenses, damages, judgments, orders, and liabilities of whatever kind or nature in law, equity, or otherwise, whether now known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, and whether or not concealed or hidden, which have existed or may have existed, or which do exist or which hereafter can, shall or may exist, based on any facts, events or omissions occurring from the beginning of existence.”