CA Unpub Decisions

On July 16, 2016, the court sentenced defendant to 15 years in prison as follows: the upper term of five years for count 1, plus 10 years consecutive for the firearm enhancement. The court stayed the sentence for count 2 pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
This appeal followed.

Washington appeals his conviction and associated sentence, contending the court’s finding the robberies were gang related must be reversed because: (1) there is insufficient evidence his gang qualifies as a criminal street gang, and (2) his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to gang evidence that violated the rules established in the recent decisions People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez) and People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523 (Elizalde). He also argues his gang and firearm enhancements are unauthorized.
We conclude Washington’s arguments challenging the court’s gang finding lack merit, but agree his enhancements are unauthorized. We therefore affirm his conviction for two counts of gang-related home invasion robbery in concert, but modify his sentence to strike the enhancements, which reduces his total term to 60 years to life.

Smith appeals, contending: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to provide a unanimity jury instruction; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support Smith's conviction for receiving stolen property; (3) the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct on all the elements of receiving stolen property; (4) Smith's trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective; (5) cumulative error rendered Smith's trial unfair; (6) the trial court improperly sentenced Smith in absentia; (7) the trial court abused its discretion by not striking Smith's prior strike; (8) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term on her conviction for receiving stolen property; (9) the trial court erred by not staying Smith's sentence for obtaining personal identifying information with the intent to defraud; (10) the restitution order is improper because Smith caused the victims no economic harm; (11) the trial court mistakenly ordered the restitution fine

Plaintiff Eduardo Ochoa appeals a judgment entered after a bench trial in which the court found against Ochoa on his personal injury claims against the County of San Diego (County) arising from a motor vehicle accident involving Ochoa and a County employee driving a County vehicle. On appeal, Ochoa challenges the trial court's factual findings regarding fault. However, because we presume the judgment is correct, and because Ochoa has not provided us with an appellate record sufficient to show the trial court erred, we affirm.

A jury found Robin Hassett guilty of one count of using tear gas, not in self-defense, in violation of Penal Code[1] section 22810, subdivision (g). The court then declined to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), and sentenced her to probation for a term of three years. On appeal Hassett argues the prosecutor committed misconduct, the court erred in refusing to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor, and a condition in the terms of her probation that requires her to obtain approval from her probation officer as to her residence and place of employment is unconstitutionally overbroad. We agree the probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad, remand the matter with instructions to the superior court to strike the condition from the terms of Hassett's probation, and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

A Modification decision.

Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Maurice Carter 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.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.
On July 20, 2015, defendant Jessie Dee Turner spent time drinking with Edward Hunting at another man’s home. When Hunting left, he took a bag and a gun that belonged to defendant. Hunting returned the next morning, July 21, 2015, and returned the bag and the gun to defendant. Defendant was upset and held a knife in his hand.
Later that same day, defendant called Hunting and asked what he was doing. After a brief conversation, Hunting drove to where he believed he would find defendant. When he arrived, he saw defendant standing near a truck approximately 100 yards away. As Hunting drove toward defendant, defendant fired shots from a pistol at Hunting’s vehicle. One bullet shattered the windshield and struck the dash

Appellants M.R. (mother) and R.F. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders, declaring minor A.R. a dependent of the court and removing him from parental custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, 395.)[1]/[2] They contend there was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction and removal. They also contend the juvenile court erred in denying mother reunification services. We affirm.

Defendant Jerun Tyrone Edwards appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify his credit for time served. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) requesting we independently review the entire record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We notified defendant he could independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted this court to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal and defendant’s appointed counsel has satisfied his responsibilities under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm the order from which defendant appeals.

R.R. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s orders denying her petition to reinstate family reunification services (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388),[1] terminating parental rights to her daughter, M.J., and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (§ 366.26.) Mother contends (1) the court abused its discretion by denying her section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing and (2) the beneficial parent-child relationship exception precludes the child’s adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

Robert Lee Carroll appeals his conviction by jury of petty theft with prior theft related convictions. (Pen. Code,
§§ 484, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a).)[1] In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that appellant had suffered four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant was sentenced to four years state prison and ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
The evidence shows that a Costco loss prevention officer saw appellant put on a men’s Calvin Klein jacket, walk through the store past the cash registers with the jacket, and enter the restroom where a “No Merchandise Allowed” sign was posted. The jacket had a price tag attached under the left armpit with a lanyard attached to it. Appellant left the restroom and was detain

S.T. (mother) appeals from orders made at a selection and implementation hearing held in accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26. She contends the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). She also argues the juvenile court erred in refusing to consider her modification petition before terminating her parental rights. We affirm.

Noe T. (father) challenges a juvenile court jurisdictional order. Father contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g) based on his inability to arrange for the care of his son, Emiliano.[1] We find no error and affirm.