CA Unpub Decisions

O.V. (Minor) appeals an order denying in part his request to have his juvenile records sealed. He contends that revisions to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, effective after his juvenile wardship petition was dismissed, applied retroactively to authorize the juvenile court to seal his records. We shall affirm the order.

Michael Youravish led Forrest Lovejoy down an isolated forest path, ostensibly to steal marijuana plants, then brutally stabbed him 35 times with a knife he took earlier that evening from a friend’s home. He was convicted of first degree murder with a special circumstance of lying in wait. Youravish contends the evidence was insufficient to support the special circumstance, that the court misinstructed the jury on the effect of his voluntary intoxication, and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request adequate jury instructions. He also asserts his sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment. His contentions are meritless, so we affirm.

Defendant Mark Anthony Wisdom appeals from an order denying his petition for redesignation of his 2006 felony convictions as misdemeanors under Penal Code section 1170.18, which was enacted pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, at the November 4, 2014 election. Defendant’s convictions were based on his no contest plea to possession of two motorcycles in violation of section 496d. Defendant contends that his offenses were eligible for reduction to misdemeanors because the value of each of the two motorcycles was less than $950. He further contends that the order violated his constitutional right to equal protection because theft of a vehicle worth less than $950 (§ 487) and receiving other kinds of stolen property worth less than $950 (§ 496, subd. (a)), may be deemed only a misdemeanor.

Defendant and appellant James Ware, Jr. (defendant) talked himself into a sentence of 35 years to life in prison. During phone calls with his brother Rick Ware (Rick), defendant repeatedly threatened to set fire to the house occupied by their mother, Rick, and Rick’s daughter after Rick told defendant he was not welcome in the house. Rick recorded the calls without defendant’s knowledge and played the recordings for the police, who arrested defendant and charged him with attempted arson and making criminal threats. Defendant initially secured a very favorable plea deal, but when he exhibited reticence about following through on his end of the bargain, the trial court withdrew its approval of the deal and set the case for trial. A jury found defendant guilty on the criminal threats charge, and we are asked to decide (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it set aside the plea deal, (2) whether the court correctly ruled the phone call recordings were admissible, (

Defendant Christopher Anthony Vogelsang, having obtained the reduction of a prior felony conviction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47, as approved by voters Gen. Elec., Nov. 4, 2014, eff. Nov. 5, 2014 (Proposition 47)), appeals from the trial court’s order refusing to strike a sentencing enhancement for the prior prison term served for that felony. The issue whether Proposition 47 requires the striking of such a sentencing enhancement is currently pending before our Supreme Court. (People v. Valenzuela (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 692, review granted Mar. 7, 2016, S232900.) While awaiting the high court’s guidance, we conclude the trial court’s order was correct.

Leon Vaughn appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to one count of possessing heroin for sale. He contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress and that a probation condition prohibiting his use or possession of drugs is unconstitutionally vague. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant John Thomas Sullivan--a registered sex offender--was told to leave by his landlady and locked out of the house. He did not reregister with law enforcement within the required five-day period. A jury found him guilty of a felony sex offender registration violation, and the trial court found he had a prior strike conviction and four prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 290.013, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced defendant to prison for 10 years, and defendant timely filed this appeal.
On appeal, defendant contends no substantial evidence supports his felony conviction, trial counsel ineffectively conceded he had knowledge of his duty to reregister, and the trial court improperly refused a requested instruction regarding landlord-tenant law in his effort to show his eviction was unlawful. We shall affirm.

In 1979, Alma Zuniga was stabbed, raped and shot to death then buried in a shallow grave. Her assailant remained unknown until 2012, when police received information that caused the “cold case” to be reopened and DNA specimens examined. John Clark Russell was identified as the perpetrator through a DNA match. He appeals after a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189). The jury also found true allegations that (1) appellant personally used a firearm and a dangerous and deadly weapon in committing the offense (§§ 12022, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)); and (2) the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated and was committed during the commission of a kidnapping (§ 190.2, former subd. (c)(3)(ii), now subd. (a)(17)(B)) and rape (id., former subd. (c)(3)(iii), now. subd. (a)(17)(C)). The trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole plus three years. The court also ordered him to pay, among other things, a $10,000 rest

A defendant is convicted of two felony counts. Before sentencing, he successfully petitions to redesignate prior felony convictions as misdemeanors. Here we hold that the prior convictions cannot be used to enhance his current sentence under Penal Code section 667.5.

Steven Romero appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of criminal threats in violation of Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a). The jury found the accompanying gang allegation true. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B), (C).) Following a court trial on the allegations that appellant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subd. (b)) and had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), the trial court found the strike prior and one of the prior prison term allegations to be true. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of nine years in state prison.
We reverse the trial court’s determination that appellant’s 2003 juvenile adjudication for violation of former section 245, subdivision (a)(1) qualifies as a serious felony conviction and hence a strike based on the court’s reliance on a handwritten reference to a baseball bat contained in the juvenile petit

Appointed counsel for defendant Timon Joel Pool 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Robert Hamilton Palmatier pleaded no contest to unlawful use of another person’s personal identifying information (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) and admitted he had a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1)) (strike prior). On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to dismiss his strike prior. We conclude the trial court had no authority to dismiss the strike prior. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

The jury convicted defendant and appellant Roy Foster Otis in count 1 of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and in count 2 of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). With respect to count 1, the jury found true the allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)
The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in state prison. The sentence was composed of a three-year term in count 1, plus three years for the personal infliction of great bodily injury enhancement. Defendant received a concurrent three-year term in count 2.
Defendant contends the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on simple assault as a lesser included offense of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury in count 1. He also contends the finding that he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim and his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in

Keith Osby was beaten, bound, and shot in the head because defendant Tina Odom and her mother believed he stole a PlayStation and laptop from their home. Defendant claims no substantial evidence supports her conviction of first degree murder and torture. She also asserts the trial court erred in its instructions regarding the kidnapping and torture special circumstances, and that no substantial evidence supports the jury’s findings on those special circumstances. Lastly, she maintains her sentence of life without the possibility of parole violated her Eighth Amendment rights because she was 18 years old at the time the crime was committed.