CA Unpub Decisions

Hector Morales appeals the judgment entered following a contested violation of probation proceeding. The trial court found Morales to be in violation of probation for committing an act of vandalism and failing to complete a residential drug treatment program.
Morales appealed the judgment, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Morales did not file any supplemental brief of his own.

Jimmy Jesse Morales, Jr., entered into a plea agreement which required him to plead no contest to one count of second degree robbery. All terms of the plea agreement were complied with by the parties and the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant Luis Montenegro III of attempted possession of a controlled substance (Pen. Code, § 664; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377/count 1), a lesser included offense of the possession for sale of methamphetamine charged in count 1, active participation in a street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)/count 3), possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378/count 4), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)/count 10). The jury also found true a gang enhancement in count 4
(§ 186.22, subd. (b)). In a separate proceeding, the court found true several prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), a serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)), two prior conviction enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)), and allegations that Montenegro had a prior conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

Defendant Bradley Craig Mathes appeals from a judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of attempted extortion. (Pen. Code, §§ 519, 524.) The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years, doubled to six years in state prison as his second strike. Defendant raises two issues on appeal. He contends the trial court (a) used the wrong sentencing provision when it imposed the three-year upper term and (b) abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion to dismiss allegations of a prior “strike” conviction. We affirm.

Defendant Luis Lucatero seeks reversal of his conviction for making criminal threats to Santos Trujillo under Penal Code section 422, arguing (1) the district attorney did not present sufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty, and (2) the trial court erred by not including in its jury instructions the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats. We conclude sufficient evidence supports Lucatero’s conviction. We agree the court erred by not instructing on the lesser offense, but we view that error as harmless. We therefore affirm Lucatero’s conviction.

Tauno Koivisto appeals an order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and committing him to the Department of Mental Health for involuntary treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.) We affirm.
On August 31, 1999, Koivisto pleaded guilty to burglary and robbery. The two criminal offenses concerned Koivisto approaching a man in a Los Angeles hotel parking garage, choking him, and then taking his wallet and telephone. As a result of the assault, the victim received hospital examination for injuries to his head and neck. The trial court sentenced Koivisto to a 20-year prison term; he was paroled in June 2016, and then committed as an MDO.

A jury convicted Seth Andrew Koger of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant, with an enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury. The victim, Michelle R., was Koger’s girlfriend and cohabitant. She refused to testify. The trial court, however, permitted testimony by the emergency room doctor and nurse who treated Michelle a few hours after the incident, in which they related Michelle’s statements implicating Koger in the assault. The trial court also admitted into evidence medical records reflecting Michelle’s statements. It further permitted testimony by Koger’s ex-wife, Christy S., about a prior act of domestic violence by Koger about five years earlier.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Rico Rashabb Jones (Jones) pled guilty to second degree vehicular burglary in exchange for a 16-month sentence to run concurrent to various other cases. Jones was sentenced to the agreed-upon term.
Appellate counsel failed to identify any arguable issues in the case. Our independent review of the record also failed to identify any issues. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant Andre Lamont Johnson appeals from his conviction of one count of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)). He raises a single issue on appeal—that the trial court erred in denying his request for an instruction on unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5), which he contends was a lesser included offense under the accusatory pleading test. We affirm.

A jury convicted Carlos Miguel Guzman of kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a); count 1) and corporal injury to his girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 2). Guzman admitted that he was on bail at the time he committed the offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b)).
Guzman argues that his kidnapping conviction should be reversed because the trial court’s admission of the victim’s statements to police officers violated his right to confrontation and due process. He also argues that the court erred in failing to give a necessity instruction, that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of Guzman’s jail phone call with his friend, and that there was cumulative error. We affirm.

The Monterey Park Police Department applied for a search warrant and executed it at the residence of defendant Francisco Gastelum, recovering narcotics, an unloaded firearm and bundles of currency. Gastelum moved to quash the warrant and suppress the evidence recovered, arguing the magistrate issued the search warrant without a showing of probable cause. The warrant affidavit was based on a tip from another police department and described an illegal narcotics investigation involving a different suspect that had occurred at least four and one-half months before the detective sought the warrant in this case. The trial court conducted an in camera hearing, during which it reviewed the sealed search warrant, and denied the motion to quash and suppress.

Defendant and appellant Quentin Bernarde Frazier, a longtime drug dealer, threatened, assaulted, and robbed one of his clients because he believed he was owed money for drugs. As the victim lay injured on the ground, defendant fired multiple gunshots from his car.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1); assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2); criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 3); possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(l); count 4); assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 5); discharge of a firearm with gross negligence (§ 246.3, subd. (a); count 6); and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350; count 7).

On September 30, 2014, an information was filed in Kings County Superior Court, charging Andy Dale Findlay (defendant) with burglary of an inhabited dwelling, a serious and violent felony committed while a person other than an accomplice was present (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c); count 1), arson of an inhabited structure, a serious and violent felony (§§ 451, subd. (b), 667.5, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c); count 2); commission of arson for the purpose of terrorizing another (§ 11413, subd. (a); count 3), and stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count 4). On October 1, 2014, defendant pled not guilty to all charges and denied all special allegations. His request to substitute appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) was denied, but he subsequently retained counsel.

Appellant Armando Cuevas-Verduzco was convicted by a jury of possession for sale and transportation for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378 & 11379). The court placed him on formal probation for three years, including a term of probation that he serve 160 days in the county jail, which time he had already accumulated before trial.
Cuevas-Verduzco appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised this court she could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) She filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case and the points she had considered as possible appellate issues.