CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
A jury convicted Erik Christian Andersen of assault and various other offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) subsequently advised the court of an apparent error in Andersen’s sentence, and the court resentenced him accordingly.
Andersen appealed the resentencing order. His appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Andersen did not file a supplemental brief. Our independent review of the record discloses no arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm the order. |
Richard Molina was convicted of attempted premeditated murder, battery with serious bodily injury and possession of a weapon in a correctional facility. Steven Allen Ramos, another inmate of the same correctional facility, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact based on his effort to hide the weapon used by Molina, and possession of a weapon in a correctional facility. Both Molina and Ramos appeal.
|
A jury convicted Manori Dushanthi Samarakone of attempting to record a false or forged instrument and disobeying a court order. At sentencing, the trial court imposed various conditions of probation, including that Samarakone must not “associate with persons known to [her] to be parolees, on post-release community supervision, convicted felons, users or sellers of illegal drugs, or otherwise disapproved of by probation or mandatory supervision.” (Italics added.) Samarakone challenges the italicized portion of the probation condition on appeal, asserting it is unconstitutionally overbroad. We agree and modify the judgment accordingly. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
|
Plaintiffs and appellants D/K Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (D/K) and DGB Contractor Services, Inc. (DGB) (collectively plaintiffs) appeal from denial of their motion for new trial. They assert inconsistent verdicts and juror misconduct warranted a new trial. We disagree and affirm.
|
Defendant was convicted of an Estes second-degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 27-28.) The court suspended execution of a three-year prison sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation.
In an Estes robbery, the perpetrator accomplishes a theft without the use of force or fear, but in attempting to escape uses force or fear. Often, as here, it is a case of shoplifting, and the perpetrator uses force when confronted by a loss prevention officer (LPO). Here, the LPO confronted defendant and a physical altercation occurred. Defendant’s theory at trial was that she was acting in lawful defense of her purse. The jury was unpersuaded. On appeal, she contends the court erred by excluding a recording of a 911 call, which she contends would have bolstered her theory and undermined the prosecution. We conclude the court was within its discretion in excluding the call and thus affirm. |
Appellant David Scott Workman pled guilty to one count of second degree murder and a violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a), driving while under the influence (DUI) and causing bodily injury. He had prior DUI convictions. The trial court imposed a determinate term of three years for the Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) conviction and a consecutive term of 15 years to life for the second degree murder conviction. Workman appealed, and the trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm. |
Adrian Sanchez Gomez (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of oral copulation of a person incapable of giving consent. (Pen. Code, former § 288a, subd. (g).) Sentenced to prison for eight years, he now appeals, contending the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
|
On December 8, 2014, an information was filed in Tulare County Superior Court, charging Thomas Patrick Nichols and Sandi Lyn Thornhill (Nichols and Thornhill, respectively; collectively, defendants) with possession of methamphetamine for sale during the commission of which a principal was armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1); count 1), possession of marijuana for sale during the commission of which a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 11359; Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1); count 2), possession of methamphetamine while armed with a firearm (§ 11370.1, subd. (a); count 8), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (former § 11364.1, subd. (a); counts 9 & 10).
|
A jury convicted Fernando Martinez Romero (defendant) of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true allegations that defendant personally used a firearm (id., § 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally discharged a firearm causing death (id., § 12022.53, subd. (d)) when he shot and killed a man during a gathering of friends and family. On appeal, defendant contends his conviction should be reversed because the trial court erred and violated his rights to due process and a fair trial when it excluded certain impeachment evidence and sanitized a prosecution witness’s prior felony convictions. He also argues his counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not request an instruction on voluntary intoxication in violation of defendant’s rights to due process, to a fair trial, and to present a defense. He asserts the cumulative effect of these errors resulted in a violation of his right to due process.
We affirm the judgment. |
Minor, M.P., suffers from cerebral palsy, asthma, and a seizure disorder. M.P.’s mother, A.H. (mother), died in August 2016. After mother’s death, M.P.’s maternal grandmother, petitioner and respondent, T.H. (grandmother), petitioned the probate court for appointment as M.P.’s guardian. The court granted grandmother’s guardianship petition over the objection of M.P.’s father, objector and appellant, Mi.P. (father). Father contends that the court erred in determining grandmother was a de facto parent, and that the court should have obtained a report and recommendation on the guardianship petition from the regional center. He also argues that the probate court erroneously failed to communicate with the court in Kern County, where the parents had a family law case, about the proper venue. Lastly, he contends that the court erred in failing to consider two of his filings as evidence at the guardianship hearing. We affirm.
|
In a third amended complaint (TAC), Brooke Stjerne (Mother), Kyle Stjerne (Father), and Danica Stejerne (the victim) sued Eldorado Polo Club (Eldorado), Desert Polo Land Company, LLC (Desert Polo), and others for negligence and premises liability. Mother and Father sued Eldorado, Desert Polo, and others for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The trial court granted Eldorado’s motion for summary adjudication as to Mother’s and Father’s claims for negligence and premises liability because Mother and Father conceded their claims were not viable. The trial court granted Eldorado’s motion for summary adjudication as to the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action because Mother and Father did not witness the victim being injured. |
This case concerns interests in a cabin located on U.S. Forestry Service property in Mono County. Frank Capra, Sr., owned the possessory and residential interest in the cabin and devised it to his children in his will. His children are disputing their rights to the cabin. A complaint contesting these rights was filed in Mono County and is now pending on appeal in the Third District Court of Appeal, Capra v. Capra, case number C084032.
This case involves substantially the same parties seeking substantially the same relief in this probate case of Frank Capra, Sr., in Riverside County, as in the case pending in the Third District. The trial court ordered this case to be held in abatement pending the outcome of the Third District's ruling and denied Plaintiff and appellant Lucille Capra's request for a preliminary injunction due to the abatement. We affirm that order. |
Defendant Armando Sotelo Pascacio appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child 10 years old or younger and oral copulation of a child 10 or younger. The court sentenced him to 40 years to life.
Pascacio raises several issues on appeal but primarily argues there was insufficient evidence of the specific sexual activity required under Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (a) for a reasonable juror to find him guilty of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child 10 years old or younger. He contends that while the evidence (including his own statement) may demonstrate that he penetrated Jane Doe's genitalia with his tongue, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support an inference of penile penetration. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023