CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Donta Walters of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a)), and Walters admitted a prison prior (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed a five-year prison term.
Walters contends his due process rights were violated because one or more jurors saw him in shackles while he was being transported to and from the courtroom. We determine Walters forfeited this contention because his counsel did not object or ask for a curative instruction. We reject Walters's alternate argument that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to assert a timely objection.

Kevin Stowe, a former police officer for the City of Escondido (City), appealed the recommendation that his employment be terminated to the Escondido Personnel Board of Review (Board). After conducting over six days of hearings, the Board issued a 30-page decision in which it sustained nine out of the 13 violations found by the police department against Stowe. However, the Board disagreed with the recommended level of discipline, and thus, suggested that Stowe be suspended for 10 days without pay.
The chief of police appealed the Board's decision to the Escondido City Council (Council). The Council ultimately concluded that termination of Stowe's employment was the appropriate discipline.
Stowe filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the Council's termination decision. The superior court ruled in favor of Stowe, finding that the City's mayor made certain comments that showed actual bias. As such, the superior court granted

Appointed counsel for defendant Aaron Anthony Davies asked 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Aaron Rosas (also known as Adrian Alavez Quintero) 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).) We will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Brady Lee Strelz asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, but we will direct the trial court to correct the amended abstract of judgment.
I
Defendant’s uncle lived near defendant. On the morning of June 8, 2015, the uncle was walking with his son when defendant approached them. Defendant seemed disoriented, mumbled about snakes in his apartment and blamed the uncle for putting them there.
Defendant approached the uncle with a knife. The uncle held up his cane in an effort to defend himself, but defendant grabbed the cane and hit the uncle on the head with it. The uncle fell to the ground and told his son to run.

Appointed counsel for minor J.A. asked 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); see also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 [Wende procedure applies to appeals in juvenile delinquency cases].) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor, we will affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Following a group fight at a park, defendant Gilbert I. Saavedra pled no contest to felony mayhem under Penal Code section 203,[1] and was sentenced to 13 years. We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and conclude that no arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.

Appellant John Lavell Kendrick appeals following revocation of probation previously granted upon his plea of no contest to driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and/or a drug, with admissions he had suffered three prior drunk driving convictions. (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subds. (a) & (b), 23550, subd. (a), 23550.5, subd. (a).)[1] The court sentenced appellant to two years in the county jail. We affirm.

In Los Angeles Superior Court case No. GA095071, the jury convicted defendant Angel Octavion Garcia of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §187, subd. (a)) during which he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (knife; § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). He was sentenced to prison to 15 years to life for murder, plus the one year use enhancement.
In Los Angeles Superior Court case No. GA095189, an unrelated case, defendant pled guilty to making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); count 2) and the remaining counts (1, 3-5) were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. He was sentenced to prison to the two-year middle term, which sentence was concurrent with the GA095071 sentence.
He filed a notice of appeal from the judgment in GA095071. This court granted his motion to amend the notice to include the judgment in GA095189. These appeals are consolidated for argument and disposition.

Defendant Gene Autry McCaleb appeals from the judgment following a trial at which the jury convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2)[1] during which he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court denied probation and sentenced him to prison to a six-year term consisting of the three-year middle term, plus a three-year great bodily injury enhancement.
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying him probation, because he is eligible due to unusual circumstances and the court failed to consider those circumstances and find thereby the presumption of probation ineligibility had been overcome.
We affirm the judgment. There was no abuse of discretion. A presumption against the grant of probation arises if the defendant attempted to use or used a deadly weapon or he willfully inflicted great bodily injury on another. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s

Father Angel M. (father) challenges a jurisdiction order relating to his daughter J.A. Father shared a home with family members involved with drugs, firearms, and violence, and he brought family members to visit J.A. The juvenile court found jurisdiction for failure to protect under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).[1] On appeal, father argues there was no evidence to support jurisdiction, because J.A. did not visit his home. However, one witness said J.A. had visited father’s home, paternal family members visited J.A., and the paternal family showed some interest in seeking partial custody of J.A. We therefore affirm.

Defendant Luis Alejandro Perdomo Callejas was charged by information with one count of transporting or offering to sell methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 1), and one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378; count 2). He was convicted by jury of both counts, and was sentenced to three years probation on the condition that he serve 90 days in jail. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to take judicial notice of his co-arrestee’s no contest plea to charges arising from the arrest. We affirm.

A modification decision.

On September 1, 2014, defendant David Wayne Taylor (Taylor) shot his adult son, Michael Taylor (Michael). At trial, Taylor argued he acted in self-defense. A jury convicted Taylor of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b))[1] and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). He appeals, arguing the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Michael’s arrest for misdemeanor spousal battery and denying a motion for mistrial. We affirm.