CA Unpub Decisions

Hector Rodriguez was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, deterring or preventing an officer, and battery after he fought with an undercover detective. Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence that he knew the man he was fighting with was a peace officer. Defendant also argues the trial court failed to instruct on the specific intent required to prove the charge of deterring an officer. Court agree with defendant on this point and reverse his conviction for deterring an officer, but otherwise affirm.

Appellant Carol Mardeusz appeals from a final judgment awarding Leo Magers custody of their daughter. Mardeusz contends that the trial court erred in declaring her a vexatious litigant and that she is entitled to an additional child support award. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

After a series of delinquency petitions filed against defendant were sustained, he was charged in a separate delinquency proceeding (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) with two misdemeanor counts of resisting or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)).[1] After a contested jurisdictional hearing the court found that appellant committed the offenses as charged in the petition. In this appeal he claims that the evidence fails to show the officers were lawfully engaged in the performance of their duties. Court conclude that the officers commenced a detention of defendant without lawful grounds, and therefore reverse the judgment.

Appellant Estuardo Rodriguez Vasquez (Vasquez) appeals from his conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. He pled no contest to this charge following the courts denial of his motion to suppress under Penal[1] Code section 1538.5. His counsel has filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record. Vasquez was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and has not done so. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he asserts ineffective assistance of counsel. On our own motion, Court consolidate the appeal and writ petition.

Counsel appointed for defendant Marva Dycus (defendant) has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of her right to file a supplemental brief, but she did not do so. Court have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

Defendant is a state prison inmate who was involuntarily committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) for an additional year pursuant to Penal Code section 2970.[1] In this appeal, his appointed counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) In the alternative, defendant requests that at the very least, we conduct the level of review prescribed for LPS conservatees articulated by the California Supreme Court in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529.) Counsel has advised defendant that he could file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues he wishes to call to our attention. Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.

Defendant is a state prison inmate who was involuntarily committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) for an additional year pursuant to Penal Code section 2970.[1] In this appeal, his appointed counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) In the alternative, defendant requests that at the very least, we conduct the level of review prescribed for LPS conservatees articulated by the California Supreme Court in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529.) Counsel has advised defendant that he could file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues he wishes to call to our attention. Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Jason Jamal Payne (appellant) appeals from his resentencing following remand from this court. Appellants counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
Upon our independent review of the record Court conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. There was no legal error made in connection with appellants motions, and no abuse of discretion in denying them. Court also discern no error in appellants resentencing. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.

In this family law matter, defendants and appellants Jeff Bohbot and his mother, Mercedes Bohbot (collectively appellants), appeal an order awarding them attorney fees as too low of an award.[1] In the trial court, appellants requested approximately $223,000 for fees incurred by the law firm of Levy, Small and Lallas (LSL) for past services, as well as $125,000 for future services. Appellants also requested approximately $203,000 for fees incurred by the law firm of Jaffe and Clements (JAC) for past services, as well as $250,000 for future services. The trial court awarded them $110,000 for fees incurred by the law firm of LSL for past services, and $150,000 for fees incurred by the law firm of JAC for past services. The trial court denied appellants request for attorney fees for future services. Finding no abuse of discretion, Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant, Alcliff Morgon Daley, appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for special circumstance first degree murder (during commission of attempted kidnapping and attempted robbery), with firearm enhancements (Pen. Code, 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 12022, 12022.53, subd. (b)). Sentenced to state prison for life without possibility of parole plus 10 years, Daley claims there was trial and sentencing error.
The judgment is affirmed as modified.

Joe Edward Nash appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (Pen. Code, 664/187), shooting at an inhabited dwelling ( 246) and two counts of shooting from a motor vehicle ( 12034, subd. (c)), each of which was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1), and during each of which a principal personally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)). The trial court sentenced Nash to prison for two consecutive terms of life with the possibility of parole, plus two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Henry Bessera, Jr., of attempting to dissuade a witness, Brian Harris, (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd (a)(2))[1]and found true the allegation that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote criminal conduct by gang members.[2] In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted he had suffered two prior strike convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court granted defendants motion to strike one prior strike conviction and sentenced defendant to a prison term of 19 years. The sentence was calculated by imposing a midterm sentence of two years on the attempted dissuading of a witness charge, doubling that sentence under the three strikes law, and imposing five year enhancements for the gang finding and each prior serious felony conviction.
Defendant contends: (1) substantial evidence does not support the true finding on the gang allegation; (2) the admission of letters found in his closet, the recording on his cell phone, and Harriss testimony regarding the use of ghosts by the Mexican Mafia was an abuse of discretion; (3) the jury instruction on the elements of the gang enhancement was incorrect as a matter of law; and (4) the prosecutor committed misconduct. Court find no reversible error and affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Leon Peled,[1]through his guardian ad litem Karen Peled, appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in favor of defendants and respondents Mark Dwight, M.D., and Yvonne Bohn, M.D. (collectively the doctors) in this action for wrongful life. Leon contends: (1) the trial court erroneously instructed the jurors that they had to agree on a specific disability that could have been diagnosed of two stated disabilities; (2) the same instruction should have included a third disability; (3) a special instruction on abortion was unnecessary and prejudicial; (4) an instruction on alternative methods of treatment was unsupported by the evidence and potentially misleading; (5) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of a subsequent remedial measure; (6) the trial court should have excluded cumulative expert testimony; and (7) the trial court erred by awarding costs against Leons parents. Court affirm the judgment against Leon.

E.F., a minor, appeals from the order continuing wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) entered following a finding that he violated probation previously imposed after his admissions that he committed vandalism causing less than $400 damage (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)) and possessed a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)). The court ordered appellant placed in camp. Appellant claims the trial court committed revocation hearing and dispositional errors. Court affirm the order continuing wardship.