CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted appellant, Jorge Lopez Diaz, of two counts of robbery. (Pen.
Code, § 211.1) The two victims spoke only Spanish. Because the investigating officer,
Christopher Anaya, was not fluent in Spanish, he used another member of the police
force, Officer Gonzalez, to translate the victims’ statements.

Jeffrey George Shary entered a plea of no contest to one count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) He admitted one prior strike and was sentenced to a term of 2 years 8 months. On appeal, he asks us to reduce his sentence under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), which reduced certain theft-related and drug-related felonies to misdemeanors. Appellant’s appeal must be dismissed for two reasons. First, there is nothing in the record indicating that appellant filed a Proposition 47 petition in the superior court. Second, appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5, which is a prerequisite to an appeal following a guilty or no contest plea. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

The superior court granted Chelsea Langner probation for a term of three years
after she pleaded guilty to one count of sexual penetration of a minor with a foreign
object (Pen. Code,1 §289, subd. (h)). Langner argues the superior court abused its
discretion by imposing certain probation conditions that prohibit legal conduct that is not
reasonably related to the offense or Langner's future criminality under the test established
by People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). These conditions fall into three main
categories: (1) conditions requiring Langner to refrain from using alcohol and drugs;
(2) conditions requiring Langner to undergo therapy; and (3) restrictions typically applied
to perpetrators of sexual offenses against minors. We conclude the conditions are valid
under Lent and the court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed them, and affirm
the judgment.

Jerrell Guyton appeals from the judgment following his jury conviction of conspiracy to commit a home invasion robbery for the benefit of a gang. We conclude that the conviction is supported by substantial evidence. We modify the judgment to replace the 10-year enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) with a 15-year minimum parole eligibility term under subdivision (b)(5). The judgment is affirmed as modified.

MCB Joint Ventures, LLC (MCB) agreed to subcontract certain electrical work to
Bergelectric Corp. (Berg) in connection with a naval hospital construction project. After
Berg completed its work, the parties disputed the amount of Berg's final payment under
2 their contract. They submitted the dispute to binding arbitration, and the arbitrator
rendered an award in Berg's favor, which the trial court confirmed.

Minor G.U. appeals from a dispositional order in proceedings under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified minor of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf. Minor has not done so.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (Id. at p. 110.)

A jury found defendant Dane Huusfeldt guilty of possession of heroin for sale, and
found true a quantity enhancement. The trial court sustained a recidivist allegation, and
found defendant had violated his probation in the prior case. It sentenced him to county
jail for a split term with a period of mandatory supervision (ordering the termination of
probation in the prior matter on the completion of that sentence in January 2016).

Defendant Joseph Calavano was convicted of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Defendant was sentenced to prison, and was ordered to pay restitution to the victim for the costs associated with installing a security system in her home.
On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in imposing the restitution order, because security system costs are not permitted under section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(J).

This appeal concerns three children born to Karina E.
(mother) and Emmanuel E. (father): Caroline E. (born in
October 2012), Daniel E. (born in August 2013), and Victoria E.
(born in July 2014). Mother and father’s fourth child, M.E. (born
in May 2015), is not a subject of this appeal.

Joseph Johnathon Gomez appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and robbery (§ 211), along with his admission to a deadly weapon enhancement for both counts (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)), a great bodily injury enhancement for the assault count (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), a prior prison term (§§ 667.5. subd. (b), 668), prior serious felonies (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, 1192.7, subd. c)), two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668), and the allegation he was on parole for a serious or violent felony during the current offenses (§ 1203.085, subd. (b)). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Gomez has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief.

Joseph Johnathon Gomez appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and robbery (§ 211), along with his admission to a deadly weapon enhancement for both counts (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)), a great bodily injury enhancement for the assault count (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), a prior prison term (§§ 667.5. subd. (b), 668), prior serious felonies (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, 1192.7, subd. c)), two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668), and the allegation he was on parole for a serious or violent felony during the current offenses (§ 1203.085, subd. (b)). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Gomez has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief.

In November 2006, then 17-year-old defendant and
appellant Michael Mauricio participated in two separate, gangrelated
drive-by shootings that resulted in multiple deaths.
In January 2010, a jury convicted Mauricio of three counts of first
degree murder, and found true firearm and gang benefit findings
attached to all three counts. The trial court thereafter sentenced
Mauricio to three consecutive terms of life without the possibility
of parole (LWOP) for the murders, plus three consecutive
indeterminate terms of 25 years to life for the findings that a
principal had personally discharged a firearm causing death.
In late 2011, we affirmed the judgment with modifications to
certain fees (see People v. Mauricio (Nov. 28, 2011, B224505)
[nonpub. opn.]), and, in early 2012, the Supreme Court denied
Mauricio’s petition for review (see People v. Mauricio (Feb. 29,
2012, S199094) [nonpub. order]).

Abduqadir M. Sharif agreed to a plea bargain requiring him to plead guilty to a specified offense in exchange for a specified jail term. In addition to imposing the specified jail term, the trial court imposed a discretionary penal fine. The conviction, which qualified as a prior strike conviction, was subsequently used as a sentence enhancement in a second case.
Sharif contends the penal fine violated the terms of his plea bargain in the first case. Consequently, he contends we must reverse the judgments in both cases and allow him to withdraw his plea. (See People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1028 (Walker), overruled on other grounds by People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, 183 (Villalobos).)

This case involves a conspiracy on the part of defendants
and appellants Duane A. Vantuinen, Randall Joseph Whitmore,
and Edwin Lynn Valentine—working together with Joshua Box,
Lorraine Vasquez, Cory Mulligan, Brian Duran and Margaret
High—to burglarize the homes of Los Angeles and San
Bernardino County newspaper subscribers who requested
temporary vacation stops of newspaper delivery. Most of the
victims were customers of the Los Angeles Times, but some
subscribed to other papers such as the Inland Valley Bulletin.