CA Unpub Decisions

Tabari A. appeals from an order continuing him as a ward of the juvenile court and committing him to out-of-home placement. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Tabari was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
The juvenile court orders are affirmed.

Defendant Ruben Alvarez Villafan appeals from a judgment imposing the upper term of four years upon his guilty plea to the charge of transportation of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a). A related charge was dismissed upon entry of his plea. In selecting the upper term, the trial court explained: The aggravated term is appropriate given his numerous criminal convictions. If I dont look at anything else, that makes it an aggravated term. The sole issue raised on appeal is that the sentence was imposed in violation of defendants constitutional rights under Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S.[127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham)and the prior cases on which that decision was based. The judgment is affirmed.

Jesse Allen Cullen appeals the revocation of probation and imposition of sentence, upon his admission of the charged probation violation. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks for record review of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Court have reviewed the record and affirm.

Petitioner Jerry F. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.22)terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his daughter K. and his son W. Petitioner claims the juvenile court should have returned the children to his custody because he had substantially complied with the case plan. Court deny the petition.

A jury convicted Ramon Soto of premeditated attempted murder (count 1) and first-degree murder (count 2), in both of which Soto used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death and furthered the interests of a gang.[1] In a bifurcated hearing after a jury waiver, the court found Soto had one serious conviction qualifying as a strike, and two prison term, prior felony convictions.[2] The court imposed an aggregate 135 years-to-life sentence: on count 1, 15 years-to-life pursuant to the gang enhancement, doubled to 30 years-to-life as a second strike, plus a consecutive 25 years-to-life for discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury, for a total of 55 years-to-life; on count 2, 25 years-to-life, doubled to 50 years-to-life as a second strike, plus a consecutive 25 years-to-life for discharging a firearm causing death, for a total of 75 years to life; and a consecutive five years for the prior serious felony conviction. The court struck the prior prison term enhancements for sentencing purposes.
Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Frank Perez appeals the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, 187.) Perez admitted two prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subs. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court sentenced Perez to a prison term of 85 years to life. Court reject Perezs various claims of error and affirm the judgment as modified to include a mandatory $20 court security fee.

Miguel Munoz appeals his conviction by jury of home invasion robbery in concert with another (count 1), first degree burglary (count 2), false imprisonment by violence (counts 3, 6), witness dissuasion (counts 4, 7), and carjacking (counts 8, 9). (Pen. Code, 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A), 459, 236, 136.1, subd. (b)(1), 215, subd. (a).)[1] The jury found that appellant personally used a firearm in the commission of all such offenses. ( 12022.53, subd. (b) [counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].) The jury also convicted his codefendant, Henry Alvarado, of those crimes, as well as other crimes (forgery, commercial burglary and grand theft) that were not charged against appellant. The trial court dismissed the count 5 robbery charge and sentenced appellant to state prison for 32 years. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that the trial court committed sentencing error. Court affirm.

A jury found Florentino Yam Medina guilty of nine counts of a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a))[1]and one count of anal or genital penetration of a child by a foreign object ( 289, subd. (j)). The jury also found that Medina committed the offenses against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivisions (b), (c) and (e)(5).
The trial court sentenced Medina to three consecutive 15 year to life terms on counts 1, 5 and 8. The trial court also sentenced Medina to the six-year midterm on each of the remaining counts to run concurrently with the 45 year to life term. Court affirm.

Andres Padilla was granted probation after a jury convicted him of grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (b)(3)) and grand theft by fraudulent use of an access card or account information ( 484g, subd. (a)). He appeals, contending that the trial court erred in not sua sponte giving a jury unanimity instruction. Court affirm.

food vendor has sued an airline and the airlines meal preparer for allegedly breaching a contract to purchase products from the vendor. The trial court sustained demurrers to most of the complaint, without leave to amend. The vendors attorney withdrew from the case. The vendor, a corporation, did not hire new counsel, though state law prohibits it from representing itself. The trial court issued an OSC regarding the corporations lack of representation. After a hearing, the court dismissed the case: the absence of counsel prejudiced defendants efforts to prepare for the upcoming trial, and there was no indication that the vendor would hire counsel in the foreseeable future. Court affirm.

In this dissolution proceeding, Wendy Leon (Wife) agreed to purchase Mark Leon's (Husband) interest in the family residence. In financing the purchase, Wife refinanced a loan secured by the residence, incurring a prepayment penalty. Husband sought an order requiring Wife to pay the entire penalty. Husband attempts to appeal the order denying his motion. Because no final judgment has been entered, the order is not appealable. Nevertheless, Court elect to treat the attempted appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate. Court deny the petition.

A modification decision.

John Weber appeals from the judgment entered following revocation of probation. He had previously pleaded nolo contendere to second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211.) The trial court sentenced him to prison for three years. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he had violated the conditions of his probation. Court affirm.

Guadalupe G. (father) and Rhianna G. (mother) appeal the trial court's orders terminating their parental rights to their four children, Karina G., born in February 1997, Mercy G., born in May 2000, Gino G., born in July 2002 and Sophia G., born in May 2004. Mother and father contend the trial court erred because there is substantial evidence that they regularly visited the children and that the children would benefit from continuing the parental relationship. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) In addition, father contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a continuing visitation order after it had terminated parental rights. Court affirm.