CA Unpub Decisions

Jacob Eugene Sellmer (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and the trial court sentenced him to probation for three years with various conditions. He contends: (1) the court abused its discretion in imposing a probation condition requiring him to pass the General Educational Development (GED) test during his probationary period; and (2) the probation condition requiring him to obtain his probation officer’s approval before traveling outside of the state is unconstitutionally overbroad. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

Ralph Ramirez appeals following a contested probation revocation hearing and sentencing. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.

Defendant Gilberto Montalvan was convicted of forcible lewd act on a child under 14, five counts of lewd act on a child under 14, and witness dissuasion. He was sentenced to 14 years in state prison. On appeal, he asserts instructional error, ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, multiple sentencing errors, and an improper restitution fine. Most of defendant’s arguments lack merit. We agree, however, that multiple sentencing orders were improper, specifically an order prohibiting contact with all minors, an order prohibiting defendant from owning and possessing firearms, and a $2,100 restitution fine. We thus affirm in part and reverse in part.

A jury convicted defendant James Miller of six counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with two different children under the age of 14. The victims were his adopted granddaughters, Ka.T. and Ke.T., and the incidents occurred when the girls were ages 6 and 7, respectively. The trial court sentenced defendant to three consecutive 15-year-to-life sentences for counts one through three, and three concurrent 15-year-to-life sentences for counts four through six.

Defendant and appellant Richard Jurado (defendant) appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act (Proposition 47 or the initiative), asking that his felony conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) be reduced to a misdemeanor. We affirm the trial court’s order.

Justin Robert Hernandez appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f), enacted by the voters as part of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47). (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, § 14, pp. 73–74.) He contends the court erred in finding section 490.2, subdivision (a) (hereafter § 490.2(a)), also enacted by the voters as part of Proposition 47 (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec., supra, text of Prop. 47, § 8, p. 72), does not require the court to designate his felony conviction for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851, subd. (a), hereafter Veh. Code, § 10851(a)) as a misdemeanor. We conclude section 490.2(a) does not apply to convictions under Vehicle Code section 10851(a) and affirm the order.

During a search of defendant’s vehicle on October 16, 2016, over five pounds of marijuana, individually packaged, and multiple canisters of concentrated cannabis were found inside. Additionally, multiple bottles of butane, some empty and some partially full, were discovered. Defendant admitted he was present when the concentrated cannabis located in his car was made.
Defendant was charged in a complaint with one count of manufacturing a controlled substance, concentrated cannabis, (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)) and one count of possession for sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The complaint further alleged defendant suffered two prior strike convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667.) A petition to revoke defendant’s parole was also before the court.

Defendant Marquice Garrett appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction for home invasion robbery. The jury also found that he committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. The prosecution’s theory supporting the gang enhancement depended upon proof that defendant and his accomplice, Eddie Brodney McFadden (McFadden), were both members of the Pasadena Denver Lane Bloods gang (PDLB). Defendant contends the gang enhancement findings must be reversed because McFadden’s gang membership was shown through case-specific hearsay testimony by expert witnesses, found inadmissible in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). We conclude that the bulk of the challenged testimony was properly admitted and, further, any error under Sanchez was harmless. We therefore affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Vincent Manuel Garcia 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 remand for correction and clarification of the abstract of judgment, and we affirm as modified.
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 November 25, 2015, defendant pled no contest to possession of a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310). Defendant admitted four prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), all of which the court struck.

Appointed counsel for defendant John Lee Gallo 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we 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.)
The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea based upon information contained in five Redding Police Department reports. The reports are not part of the record. Two of the police reports are summarized in the probation officer’s postsentence report. On July 23 and 30, 2015, defendant kicked in the front doors and entered two separate homes. In each case, the victim was home and yelled when defendant entered. Defendant fled. On August 6, 2015, police obtained a search warrant and searched defendant’s vehi

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Ray DeCamp 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we 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.)

Defendant Wilbur Lawrence Cummings challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, contending it erred in admitting evidence discovered by law enforcement after an unlawful, warrantless search of his vehicle.
We disagree and affirm the judgment. The deputies had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle.

Stephen Cahill appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 seeking modification of the sentence imposed on his prior conviction for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851). Cahill contends his conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851 is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 and that the denial of his request violates principles of equal protection. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Dion Octave Breaux (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36). He challenges the trial court’s discretion on the ground that “there is no rational nexus between the evidence and the trial court’s finding that resentencing [defendant] would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s order.