CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
A jury found defendant Hoang Cong Nguyen guilty of multiple violent crimes, including assault with intent to commit rape during a burglary (Pen. Code,[1] § 220, subd. (b)) and attempted rape (§§ 21a, 664, subd. (a), 261, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true multiple sentencing enhancement allegations, including enhancements for great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 19 years to life in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the infliction of great bodily injury during a sexual assault. He further contends insufficient evidence supported the great bodily injury allegation as to count 8, a claim with which we agree. He adds a claim of error in the oral pronouncement of sentence and the resulting abstract of judgment, which the People concede and with which we agree. Our review of the record reveals an additional error that resulted in an unauthorized sentence--the trial court failed to order defendant to register as a sex offender under section 290. We will order the judgment modified and the abstract amended accordingly. As modified, we shall affirm the judgment. |
|
This case arises from a motor vehicle accident in which defendant Jess Langridge collided with plaintiffs Robert and Ashley Alonzo. The Alonzos rejected Langridge’s offer to settle the case, but then recovered less than the amount of the settlement offer. The trial court awarded Langridge his expert witness fees, including the fees of neurologist Floyd Fortuin as charged by the company ExamWorks, which arranged for Dr. Fortuin to serve as an expert witness for Langridge. The Alonzos appeal from the judgment. Their sole contention is that the expert witness fees for Dr. Fortuin should be reduced to $400 per hour, the amount he testified was his “normal fee,†from the $650 to $750 per hour charged by ExamWorks. Because we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount of expert witness fees, we shall affirm. |
|
Veronica R. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order finding her 17-year old son Anthony, 12-year old daughter Janessa and two-year old daughter C. dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).[1] Mother contends substantial evidence does not support that the children were at current risk of substantial harm. Finding no error, we affirm.
|
|
Defendant and appellant, T.B., appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered as a result of his admission he committed the felony of attempted first degree burglary, person present (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 459). The juvenile court placed T.B. at home on probation. We affirm. |
|
Defendant Charles Morris appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. The jury found defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court found true the allegations defendant suffered four prior convictions for which he served prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and that he suffered two prior serious felony convictions (id., §§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12). |
|
Appellant Javier Manuel Ulloa contends substantial evidence does not support the jury’s true finding that the offenses of which he was convicted -- shooting at an occupied vehicle and assault with a firearm -- were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further and assist in criminal conduct by gang members within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). Specifically, he contends the prosecution failed to present adequate evidence of the subject gang’s primary activities.[1] We conclude otherwise and affirm.
|
|
Kevin G. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following the juvenile court’s finding that he committed the offense of failure to disclose the origin of a recording or audiovisual work in violation of Penal Code section 653w, subdivision (a). He was placed home on probation, and the maximum period of confinement was determined to be one year. Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in imposing a maximum confinement term because he was placed home on probation. We strike the maximum period of confinement and affirm in all other respects.
|
|
Defendant Armando Caldera appeals from his conviction of three counts of special circumstance first degree murder, attempted premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit murder and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.[1] He contends: (1) an incorrect jury instruction denied him a fair trial and due process; (2) it was prejudicial error to admit certain evidence; (3) imposition of a Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) enhancement on each of the three murder convictions was error; and (4) the abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the sentence imposed by the trial court.[2] We strike the section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) enhancements on each of the three murder convictions and order the abstract of judgment modified to accurately reflect the sentence imposed by the trial court. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
|
|
Jose A. Castrejon appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on one count of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.[1] He contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to impeach him with a prior conviction and in excluding a photograph he sought to introduce. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. We affirm.
|
|
Defendant Monrell Donovan Murphy appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. Defendant was charged with two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,[1] § 211) naming victims Abraham Gomez (Gomez) (count 1) and Juliana Anguiano (Anguiano) (count 3), and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 4). As to counts 1 and 3, it was alleged that defendant suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and, as to all three counts, it was alleged that defendant had suffered a prior conviction under the “Three Strikes†Law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and that he had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Defendant was convicted of the two counts of second degree robbery, but found not guilty of dissuading a witness. The jury found true the prior conviction allegations. Defendant was sentenced to 18 years in prison. In addition, the court ordered defendant to pay a $1,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivisions (b) through (f), and imposed and stayed a $1,000 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court improperly excluded the testimony of defendant’s eyewitness identification expert, there was instructional error, and the restitution fine was improper. We affirm. |
|
James Crismon Smith appeals a judgment following conviction of committing a lewd act with a child, attempting to dissuade a witness, and misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations court order, with findings of a prior serious felony and strike conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a), 136.1, subd. (a)(2), 273.6, subd. (a), 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)[1] We affirm. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
