CA Unpub Decisions

On August 9, 2011, appellant, Cristian Albarran, and four codefendants were charged in a second amended indictment with first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count one),[1] second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c), count two), shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246, count three), and participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a), count four).[2] The second amended indictment included special allegations as to count one that appellant committed his offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), acted as a principal in the commission of murder and at least one other principal intentionally and personally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury or death of the victim (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)), was a principal in the commission of murder and committed the special circumstance of being an active participant in a criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)), and participated in the special circumstance of robbery while committing murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)). Counts two and three included the same special gun and gang allegations as were alleged in count one, but not the special circumstance allegations.
A jury trial began for appellant and all of the codefendants on May 16, 2012. On the second day of trial, appellant entered into a plea agreement whereby he would admit count two, second degree robbery, the gang enhancement and a gun enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1). Under the terms of the plea agreement, appellant would receive a stipulated sentence of 5 years on count two and a consecutive term of 20 years for the gun enhancement for a total prison term of 25 years. Appellant executed a felony advisement of rights, waiver and plea form acknowledging the terms of the plea agreement, the consequences of his plea, his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl,[3] and waiving his constitutional rights.

Defendant Tommy Pete Zarate appeals from his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,[1] former § 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 1), carrying a concealed weapon (former § 12025, subd. (b)(1); count 2), and being a felon in possession of ammunition (former § 12316, subd. (b)(1); count 3), along with true findings on enhancement allegations of two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).

A modification decision.

In September 2012, a jury found Leon Gerard Jackson guilty of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).[1] Jackson waived his right to a jury trial on the enhancements and admitted the allegations he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In November, the court dismissed the prior prison term allegations and sentenced Jackson to nine years in prison: twice the two-year lower term for robbery and five years for the prior serious felony conviction. The court imposed a $1,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)).[2] Jackson appeals, contending a restitution fine above the $240 statutory minimum required a judicial finding he had the ability to pay, and imposition of the fine without that finding violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. We affirm.

P.P., the mother of the minors T.B. and P.H., and T.B.’s father J.B, appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and denying mother’s petition for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 388, 366.26; unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in not finding the sibling relationship exception to adoption. Father contends there was a failure to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Father and mother join each others arguments. We affirm the orders of the juvenile court

This road easement dispute has been simmering for over 30 years. Former Lassen County Superior Court Judge Joseph B. Harvey personally viewed the road in 1981 and entered a judgment decreeing an easement in favor of a dominant parcel and against
servient parcels. The successors-in-interest have not lived harmoniously under that decree, and this appeal will not resolve their differences, as it is an interlocutory appeal from an order declining to disqualify an attorney and expert witnesses. As we shall explain, the trial court applied the proper legal standards to this dispute and resolved conflicts in the evidence against appellants. Finding no error, we shall affirm.

Defendant shot and killed Gidd Robinson. A grand jury twice declined to indict him for Robinson’s murder, but did indict him on firearm possession charges. Thereafter, the People proceeded against him by way of criminal complaint and preliminary hearing. The trial court found probable cause to hold defendant to answer for Robinson’s murder, and a jury found defendant not guilty of first degree murder but guilty of the lesser offense of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)[1] The jury also found true allegations the killing was perpetrated by means of shooting a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict great bodily injury (§ 190, subd. (d)); defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); and defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury to another person in the commission of the murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).[2] Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 45 years to life in state prison, consisting of 20 years to life for Robinson’s murder (§ 190, subd. (d)), plus a consecutive 25 years to life for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm and proximately causing great bodily injury to Robinson in the commission of the murder. Defendant’s sentence for using a firearm was stayed pursuant to section 654.

Plaintiff Kimberly R. Olson filed this action claiming law enforcement officers and county officials violated her civil rights when they searched her home without a warrant, seized numerous marijuana plants she grew allegedly pursuant to a doctor’s recommendation, and later refused to return her property after criminal charges against her had been resolved. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend against plaintiff’s first amended complaint, finding plaintiff failed to comply with the claim-filing statute and could not plead sufficient facts. It entered a judgment of dismissal.
Plaintiff appeals, asserting she pleaded sufficient facts to support her causes of action. With one exception, we disagree with her assertions. We affirm the trial court’s judgment on different grounds, except we reverse as to plaintiff’s allegation that officers violated her federal civil rights by the manner in which they searched her home.

The trial court found petitioner Staci Michelle Ransome (Mother) in contempt for a violation of a custody and visitation order. We annul the trial court's finding of contempt because the order is silent concerning resolution of disputes, if any, regarding supervised visitation.

A.W. appeals from two orders denying her motions to replace assigned counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) We affirm.

Following a bench trial on plaintiff and appellant Jeffrey Ullman’s complaint for declaratory relief and fraudulent conveyance, the superior court entered judgment for defendants and respondents Hollywood Dell First Mortgage Investors, LP (Hollywood Dell), and Carl Lindros as “Trustee of the Carl Lindros IRA”[1] (jointly, defendants). In this appeal from the judgment, Ullman contends the trial court erred in denying declaratory relief and dismissing the fraudulent conveyance claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the dismissal of the fraudulent transfer claim, but modify the judgment to reflect that the dismissal is with prejudice. The judgment, as modified, is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant, David Medina, of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))[1] and two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a).) The jury further found criminal street gang and firearm use allegations to be true. (§§186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C); 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d).) The trial court found a single prior serious felony conviction and two prior separate prison term allegations were true. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 667.5, subd. (b); 1170.12.) Defendant was sentenced to 185 years to life in state prison. We affirm in part, modify in part, and remand with directions to impose or strike prior separate prison term enhancements.

After a joint trial by jury, Manuel Campos Jr. and Vincent Stephen Del Greco were each found guilty of conspiracy to commit first degree burglary and resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer. On appeal, Del Greco challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his misdemeanor conviction of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer. Finding the evidence is sufficient, we affirm.
Campos also filed a timely notice of appeal. However, his appellate counsel found no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Following our review of the record, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Curt Martin Baughman (defendant) appeals his judgment of conviction of possession of methamphetamine for sale. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On July 31, 2013, 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. Defendant filed a letter on September 11, 2013, setting forth issues to be considered in this appeal. We have reviewed the entire record and have considered the points made by defendant in his letter brief. Finding no error or other arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.
Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 1), and cultivating marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358 (count 4).[1] As to count 1, the information further alleged a 1989 conviction of Health and Safety Code section 11379 (selling or transporting a controlled substance). After the preliminary hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to Penal Code section 995. A jury convicted defendant of count 1 as charged and acquitted him of count 4. Defendant waived a jury trial on the prior conviction allegation and after a bench trial it was found to be true. On November 14, 2012, the trial court struck the prior conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 and sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years in prison, to be served in the county jail. The court awarded 30 days of custody credit, later corrected to 36 days, comprised of 18 actual days and 18 days of conduct credit, and ordered defendant to pay mandatory fines and fees. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.