CA Unpub Decisions

On April 26, 2005, an information was filed charging appellant Aida Sandoval and Yessenia Romero[1] in count 1 with the murder of Belen Dercio (Pen. Code,[2] 187, subd. (a)); in count 2, with the murder of Rolando Rojas ( 187, subd. (a)); and in count 3, with the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Salvador Ramirez ( 187, subd. (a), 664). Under counts 1 and 2, the information alleged that appellant and Romero had committed the murders by lying in wait ( 190.2, subd. (a)(15)); furthermore, under each count it was alleged that a principal involved in the offense had been armed with a firearm ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)). In our original opinion (People v. Sandoval (Nov. 14, 2006, B187977 ) [nonpub. opn.], review granted Feb. 7, 2007, S148917), we concluded that under People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238 (Black I) the trial court properly imposed the high term on count 1; Court modified the sentence imposed on count 3 for reasons not relevant here and affirmed the judgment, so modified. The United States Supreme Court subsequently overruled BlackI in part in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). In People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 (Sandoval), our Supreme Court reversed our judgment with respect to the high term imposed on count 1, and remanded the case to us with directions to remand it to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with its opinion.[

Gerrod Johnson appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and a court trial in which he was found to have suffered one prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and a prior serious conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and was found to have served two prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[1] The court sentenced appellant to a total of 17 years in prison, comprised of the upper term of six years, doubled by reason of the strike conviction, plus five years for the prior conviction found true pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). He contends imposition of the upper term sentence violated Blakely v. Washington[ and his federal constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process of law. For reasons stated in the opinion, court affirm the judgment.

Geovani Rodas appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of robbery with the use of a firearm. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in granting the prosecutors Wheeler motion and in denying his request for a jury instruction on willfully false statements. Court find merit in the Wheeler claim and reverse on that basis without discussing the instructional issue.

Paul Dickerson appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, 666). After striking one of the strike convictions, appellant was sentenced to eight years in prison, consisting of the upper term of three years, doubled by reason of the remaining strike, and two 1 year enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5. The judgment is affirmed.

Antonio Lamont McClellan and Corey Antionne Toles appeal from the judgments entered following their pleas of no contest to felony offenses and associated enhancements. They contend that the trial court erred in denying their motions to dismiss based on outrageous government misconduct. Court affirm.

Tyrone Killingsworth appeals from the judgment entered on resentencing, following remand ordered in People v. Killingsworth et al. (Oct. 31, 2005, B171869) [nonpub. opn.] at pages 2223 (Killingsworth I). He contends that the imposition of consecutive terms for second degree murder and grand theft violated Penal Code section 654 (section 654) and his constitutional right to a jury trial. Court affirm.

The People appeal from an order granting Antoine Simmss petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The People contend that the writ was improperly granted because the order was based solely on arguments raised in Simmss traverse and no evidentiary hearing was held. Court conclude that an evidentiary hearing should have been ordered and reverse on that basis.

K.S. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed a petty theft, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 484, subd. (a)). He contends: (1) there is insufficient evidence to sustain the finding he committed the theft; (2) leading questions were impermissibly used to support the finding; (3) the juvenile court abused its discretion when it rejected the recommendation for probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a); (4) the court erred when it set a maximum period of confinement; and (5) one of the conditions of probation is unconstitutionally vague. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court strike the maximum period of confinement and in all other respects affirm the order.

Louis F. (Father) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those aspects of the juvenile courts July 11, 2007 order (1) asserting juvenile court jurisdiction over his son E.F. (born in Dec. 2006) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) based on Fathers criminal history (count b-4), and (2) denying Father reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) based on his conviction for extortion. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts jurisdictional order, but substantial evidence does not support the denial of reunification services, so Court grant the petition as to that part of the order denying Father reunification services.

On September 7, 2006, the victims reported several items stolen from their home including golf clubs and a reciprocating saw. On September 14, 2006, a pawnshop notified the county sheriff that it had purchased golf clubs and a reciprocating saw from defendant Charles Duane Dutcher. The items belonged to the victims. Defendant had in his possession the pawnshop slip. Defendant claimed he obtained the stolen items from someone else who he refused to identify. Defendant denied stealing the items.
Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Plaintiff and appellant Robert Cornell (plaintiff) brought this action against Robinson Ford (defendant), alleging violation of California's Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA; Civ. Code, 2981 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated).[1] Additionally, he claims the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; 1750 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code,
17200 et seq.) were violated by way of the predicate ASFA nondisclosure violations. Plaintiff's vehicle purchase contract from defendant allegedly misrepresented the actual purchase/financed price of the new vehicle, by improperly calculating it with respect to the actual cash value of his other vehicle that was traded in as part of the transaction, but on which he still owed a larger loan balance. (In such a case, the existing loan value on the vehicle that was traded in exceeds its current cash value; see Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140.) The purpose of such a practice is allegedly to make the purchase contract more attractive to lenders who may consider taking assignment of the contract, or to achieve a certain monthly payment for the customer. The order is reversed with directions to grant class certification and to conduct appropriate further proceedings.

David Lee entered a negotiated guilty plea to corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) with personal infliction of great bodily injury (GBI) (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (e)). The court sentenced him to prison for seven years: the three-year middle term for corporal injury to a cohabitant and the four year middle term for personal infliction of GBI. Lee appeals. court affirm.

Tina G. seeks review of juvenile court orders denying family reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b) and setting a hearing under section 366.26 to select and implement a permanency plan for her son, Antonio A. The petition is denied.

A jury found defendant Anthony John Wallace guilty of assault under Penal Code section 240[1](count 1) and of willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant under section 273.5, subdivision (a) (count 2). That same day, defendant admitted his prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider certain evidence and in failing to give a unanimity instruction. For the reasons set forth below, Court affirm the judgment.