CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Defendant John Christopher Connell appeals from an order denying a petition to recall his so-called “three strikes” sentence of 28 years to life, brought pursuant to the provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), codified at Penal Code section 1170.126.[1] (See Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595.)
Defendant’s petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing was denied upon determination that “resentencing [defendant] would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (See § 1170.126, subd. (f).)
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30

Defendant Stuart Gorden Douglas appeals his convictions for attempted carjacking and making criminal threats after he pulled a gun on repossession agents attempting to repossess his recreational vehicle. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his carjacking conviction. The People properly concede this claim. Defendant also claims the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury on the legal definition of “permanent residency” as related to a recreational vehicle. This issue is moot in view of our reversal of the carjacking charge.
We reverse the attempted carjacking conviction and remand for resentencing.

efendant Tony Lee Kitchen pleaded no contest to domestic violence. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).)[1] As part of defendant’s plea agreement, the trial court postponed imposition of judgment to allow defendant to complete a residential rehabilitation treatment program. The trial court later found defendant failed to complete six months in a residential rehabilitation program and sentenced him to three years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that imposition of sentence violated his plea agreement. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Juan Rodriguez guilty of bringing a controlled substance into a jail. On appeal, defendant contends his due process rights were violated because: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing admission of a clause in a stipulation regarding his prior uncharged conduct; (2) the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by introducing evidence beyond the scope of a stipulation; and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors resulted in prejudice. Finding no merit in these contentions, we affirm.

Defendant Joshua Michael Lowe was convicted of multiple charges related to a series of vehicle burglaries. On appeal, defendant requests this court review the sealed documents related to his Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)) to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining there were no discoverable materials (Evid. Code, § 1043 et seq.). Because the trial court failed to swear in the custodian of records at the in camera hearing, we remand the case to the trial court with directions to hold a new hearing in which the oath is administered to the custodian of records before he testifies.

Defendant Steven Werner Mueck, an inmate serving 25 years to life in prison following conviction of a felony that was not violent (as defined by Pen. Code, §667.5, subd. (c)) [1] or serious (as defined by § 1197.2, subd. (c)), filed a petition pursuant to Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, to have his sentence recalled and to be resentenced. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).) The Proposition 36 court denied the petition, finding resentencing defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the Proposition 36 court erred in denying his petition because it refused to apply the definition of “ ‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ ” (§ 1170.18, subd. (c)) in Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (§ 1170.18, subd. (c)),[2] in considering his Proposition 36 petition.
We shall conclude that Proposition 47’s definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to publ

Defendant John Lawrence Halsema shot his friend and housemate Craig Davies in the back, killing him. Nine or ten days later, defendant called police to report the shooting, stating that it had been an accident.
A jury found defendant guilty of murder in the second degree (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189),[1] and found true an allegation that his personal use of a firearm resulted in Davies’s death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) However, finding that the trial court committed prejudicial instructional error, this court reversed the judgment and remanded for retrial.[2] At defendant’s second trial, a jury again found defendant guilty of second degree murder and found true the enhancement allegation that defendant personally used a firearm resulting in the death of Davies.

Defendant Larry Firebaugh’s probation was revoked after he failed to complete a drug rehabilitation program ordered by the court. The previously imposed sentence of eight years eight months in state prison was then ordered executed. Defendant appeals that order, arguing that he “was denied his 14th Amendment due process protections when his probation was revoked without written notice of the claimed violation and a timely formal hearing providing him with the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation and in support of reinstatement and/or modification of the plea agreement.” We shall conclude that defendant forfeited his claims on appeal by failing to raise them below. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.

A.L. (mother) appeals orders of the juvenile court which terminated juvenile court dependency jurisdiction over her children, I.L. and S.L., minors under the juvenile court law, following a jurisdiction/disposition hearing. In jurisdiction exit orders, the court granted father custody of the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).)[1] We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s counsel’s request for a continuance of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing when mother did not appear for that hearing, and 2) its decision to proceed to decide the merits in mother’s absence did not contravene her due process rights. We affirm.

Albert Salinas Lara was charged in a felony information with one felony count of possession of a slungshot (Pen. Code, § 22210),[1] one misdemeanor count of petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)), one misdemeanor count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), one misdemeanor count of possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)), and one misdemeanor count of trespass (§ 602, subd. (m)). He was convicted by jury of all misdemeanor counts. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the felony count, which was later dismissed by the court pursuant to section 1385. Lara was sentenced to serve 365 days with presentence credits of 365 days. He filed a timely appeal.

Maria D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s findings and orders regarding her daughter D.G. The court removed D.G. from mother’s custody and granted custody to D.G.’s incarcerated father Andres G. (Andres), who placed D.G. with her paternal grandmother. The court ordered no family reunification services for mother and terminated jurisdiction. We affirm the findings and orders.[1]

Malcolm James Martin (defendant) appeals his conviction for first degree burglary. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On December 12, 2016, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
The prosecution evidence established that in the early morning hours of September 18, 2015, police were called to a residence to investigate a possible break-in. When the first officer arrived he observed defendant and his accomplice inside the residence disconnecting cables, moving musical instruments around, removing speakers from a basement music studio, and then taking those speakers upstairs to the second floor. Whe

Priscilla M. (mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition seeking return of her three children to her care or, in the alternative, unmonitored visitation. We conclude the juvenile court did not err in denying the petition, and thus we affirm.