CA Unpub Decisions

Gregory Oran Weldy pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license, which had resulted from a prior driving under the influence conviction (Veh. Code., § 14601.2, subd. (a)). A jury convicted him of driving under the influence of alcohol and having a measurable blood alcohol level in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b). The jury also found true allegations that in the commission of those offenses, Weldy had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23578) and drove a vehicle 30 or more miles per hour over the speed limit (Veh. Code, § 23582, subd. (a)). Weldy admitted the offenses were raised to felonies under Vehicle Code section 23550.5. He also admitted four prison priors. The People dismissed a charge of evading an officer with reckless driving.

Jesse Wagenman asks this court to order the trial court to award him 54 days of presentence conduct credits. He says a letter from his counsel to the trial court pointing out the alleged error satisfied the statutory requirement that he make a written motion for correction before seeking appellate review of any error in the calculation of presentence credits. The trial court did not respond to his letter.
As of January 1, 2016, Penal Code section 1237.1 provides that “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the calculation of presentence custody credits, unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction of the record in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing.

After a traffic stop, police found 2.8 pounds of methamphetamine hidden in a fake fire extinguisher in a car driven by Juan Sanchez. After the court denied his motion to suppress evidence, Sanchez pleaded guilty to (1) possession of more than one kilogram of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378 & 11370.4, subd. (b)(1); count 1); (2) transportation of more than one kilogram of methamphetamine (§§ 11379, subd. (a) & 11370.4, subd. (b)(1); count 2); and (3) failure to appear while on bail (Pen. Code, § 1320.5; count 3).

Shaun Marshall Roper (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying his petition to reduce his 2003 conviction for receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivisions (b) and (g), also known as Proposition 47. He contends the trial court erred in finding that the value of the property exceeded $950, thus rendering him ineligible for a reduction. The law concerning the method for valuing the stolen checks at issue in this case was not settled when defendant filed his petition. The reasoning of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903 (Romanowski) now shows the proper methodology to be applied. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the matter for a determination of value.

Defendant Donald Frank New was charged by amended information with one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (§ 272, subd. (a)(1)), and three counts of child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)). It was also alleged that he suffered a prior strike and serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)). He was convicted by jury of all counts, and the special allegations were found true by the trial court.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike his 2002 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of nine and one-half years, consisting of the low term for robbery, doubled because of the strike prior, plus five years for his serious felony conviction, plus a consecutive 180-day term for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The 180-day terms for the child endangerment counts were to run concurrently.

Defendant Sarah Sayad Jafari entered a no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). She was sentenced pursuant to her plea agreement to one year in county jail to be served on electronic home detention, followed by three years of mandatory supervision. She contends that the court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence of heroin found in her possession when a car in which she was riding was stopped by the police.

Appellant Jesse Howard pled no contest to a charge of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), and admitted three prior prison term allegations pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), in exchange for an agreed upon prison term of seven years. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the plea agreement. Howard appealed and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.

Appellant Randale Hardson appeals the judgment following his conviction and sentence for two counts of domestic violence and one count of assault stemming from two incidents with his then-ex-girlfriend Stacy H. (hereafter Stacy). He raises various challenges to his conviction and sentence, none of which warrants reversal of the judgment. We affirm.

After years of a happy and uneventful marriage, appellant Juan Carlos Guadarrama encountered several personal tragedies and began drinking to excess. He started accusing his wife Amalia of sexual indiscretions. Then he accused her of maintaining an illicit sexual relationship with her sister Anita. He obsessed over this for months, going so far as to secretly record her conversations and replay them to Amalia, insisting they proved that she and Anita were engaged in abhorrent conduct.
Finally he and Amalia separated. One day he called and asked for a ride to work. She drove to his location and picked him up. In fact, his place of employment was closed. He took a BB gun out of his back pack and shot her repeatedly. Then he attacked her with a large knife. Amalia fled, but not before receiving wounds serious enough to require 13 days of hospitalization, including time in intensive care and 2 surgeries.

Appellant Cesar Humberto Diaz was convicted after a jury trial of assault with a deadly weapon against his former wife with the use of a knife, attempted infliction of corporal injury on her, criminal threats, and personal use of a deadly and dangerous weapon. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Appellant has also been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so. After our independent review of the entire record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm.

Appellant Paul Marshal Curry was convicted of special circumstances murder for poisoning his wife, Linda Curry, for financial gain. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss due to precharging delay. He also challenges the admission of various statements made by Linda and claims CALCRIM No. 359, the standard jury instruction on the corpus delicti rule, is unconstitutional. We reject these claims and affirm the judgment.

George Andres Carrillo filed a petition seeking to have his 2003 conviction vacated because he was not advised of the immigration consequences of his plea. The record reveals Carrillo was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea before his plea was accepted by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the petition.

Plaintiff Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC (NHOM) appeals from a postjudgment order denying its motion for an award of attorney fees against Kent A. McNaughton & Associates (McNaughton), and from an amended judgment reflecting the post-judgment order. The two appeals have been consolidated.
The attorney fee dispute followed a complicated hybrid proceeding to resolve a lease dispute, with both an arbitration and a court trial. Although the landlord, NHOM ultimately obtained a money judgment against its erstwhile tenant, McNaughton, the amount awarded was much less than it sought, and the court later determined there was no prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (section 1717).

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. She contends the court erred in finding her child, S.R., does not come under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In particular, she argues the social worker performed an inadequate investigation resulting in incomplete notices to the relevant tribes. She also contends the evidence compelled a finding that the parent-child-benefit exception applied and that, as a result, her parental rights should not have been terminated. We affirm.