CA Unpub Decisions

On December 13, 2006, the Kern County District Attorney filed a wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) in juvenile court charging appellant minor as follows: count Iwillful vandalism of property with a value in excess of $400 (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(1)) and count IIviolation of probation (Welf. & Inst. Code, 777, subd. (a)(2)).
On December 27, 2006, the court conducted an uncontested detention hearing and appellant denied the allegations of the petition. On February 22, 2007, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the dispositional order and the findings of the contested jurisdictional hearing. The judgment is affirmed.

Pedro Muna petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluding he did not sustain an industrial injury. (Lab. Code, 5950; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.494.) Muna contends the WCAB improperly amended a stipulation and that its decision lacked substantial evidence. Court find no merit in the arguments and deny the petition.

On July 29, 2005, defendant entered an "open" no contest plea to 16 counts of second degree robbery.[1] (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c).) On April 18, 2006, the court sentenced defendant to the aggregate term of 14 years, eight months in state prison consisting of the following. The court imposed the mid-term of three years on count one, plus one year for a weapon enhancement. As to counts two through nine, the court imposed one-third the mid-termone year, plus one third the enhancement timefour months, for each offense to run consecutively with the term on count one. As to counts 10 through 16, the court imposed the mid-term of three years plus a one-year enhancement on each count to be served concurrently. The court awarded defendant 478 days custody credits. The court ordered victim restitution, a restitution fund fine of $2400, and imposed but suspended a parole revocation fee in the same amount. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.) In addition, the court imposed various other fines, fees and penalty assessments and advised defendant of a three-year period of parole upon release from prison.
Court have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there is no arguable issue on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, Court provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.)

On July 15, 2005, defendant pleaded no contest to one felony count of grand theft (Pen. Code, 484, 487, subd. (a), count one),[1] one felony count of access card forgery ( 484f, subd. (b), count two), three felony counts of unauthorized use of personal identifying information of another person ( 530.5, subd. (a), counts three, seven and eight), one felony count of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a), count four), one felony count of issuing a check with insufficient funds ( 476a, count five), two felony counts of forgery ( 470, subd.(a), counts six and 11), one felony count of petty theft with a prior ( 484/666, count nine), one felony count of obtaining telephone or telegraphic services by fraud ( 502.7, subd. (a)(1), count 10), and two misdemeanor counts of falsely reporting a crime ( 148.5, subd. (a), counts 12 and 13). Defendant admitted that she had a prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and had served two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
In exchange for her no contest pleas, defendant was promised her maximum sentence would be 12 years in state prison. However, the court would consider a Romero motion at the time of sentencing.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Court have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there is no arguable issue on appeal, including appellate counsel's possible issue referred to pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (87 S.Ct. 1396).[4] Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, Court provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed."

This matter comes to us on remand from the California Supreme Court, with directions to vacate [our] decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301 [Crandell] . . . . In our earlier opinion, we concluded that imposition of a $525 drug program fee plus penalty assessment pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 did not violate the terms of the negotiated disposition and accordingly affirmed the judgment. (People v. Floyd (Jan. 10, 2007, A114159) [nonpub. opn.].) No supplemental briefs have been filed.
Having reconsidered the cause in light of Crandell, Court again affirm the judgment.

In 2006 appellant Todd Fisher pleaded guilty to possession of heroin for sale, for which he was placed on probation. Thereafter the court found him in violation of probation, revoked that disposition and imposed the upper term sentence of four years. Appellant argues that imposition of the upper term sentence violated his rights to a jury trial and to due process. Court affirm.

Cynthia H., the maternal grandmother of Athena H. and Israel P., appeals from an order denying the second of her two requests for de facto parent status of her grandchildren. We reversed the juvenile courts order denying her first request in In re Athena H. (June 27, 2007, A114477 [nonpub. opn.]) (Athena II). For the following reasons, Court reverse the second order as well.

Appellant Peter Sternberger (Sternberger) appeals from a trial court order granting summary judgment to respondent Michael Garbarini (Garbarini). Because disputed facts exist, Court reverse.

Appellant Four Star General Properties, LLC (Four Star) contends that respondents Yana Henriks (Henriks), Blue Water Sunset, LLC (Blue Water) and its attorney, Philip Dapeer (Dapeer), intimidated, threatened and bribed a witness to submit a false declaration that enabled Blue Water to improperly obtain an order putting property owned by Four Star into a receivership estate. According to Four Star, the trial court erred when it denied its petition under Civil Code section 1714.10[1]for leave to file a proposed cross-complaint alleging that Blue Water, Dapeer and Henrik conspired to commit abuse of process. Court find no error and affirm.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that appellant Eric T. committed grand theft of personal property in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a). The court also sustained a petition alleging that appellant received stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). For both petitions, the court found that appellant was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court. For the first petition, the court placed appellant on supervised probation. For the second petition, the court ordered suitable placement for appellant. Appellant's aggregated maximum term of confinement was three years and four months. Court remand this matter for a declaration and for clarification of the differences between the statements at the dispositional hearing and the minute order, as set forth in more detail in the disposition.

Appellant Kevin Redrick was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of a deadly weapon (a writing pen knife and metal knuckles) in violation of Penal Code section[1]12020, subdivision (a)(1), one count of possession of a destructive device ("starburst rounds") in violation of section 12303, and one count of possession of unregistered assault weapons in violation of section 12280, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to state prison for a total of 16 months. Appellant appeals his conviction, asserting Detective Kowalsky was not qualified as an expert on starburst rounds and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Averial D. Alexander (defendant) pleaded no contest to a charge of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a); 664).[1]Defendant admitted allegations that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subd. (c)) (the firearm GBI enhancement), and that his crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) (the gang enhancement). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea. Court modify the award of presentence credit, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Milton C. appeals an order setting his maximum period of confinement (Welf. & Inst. Code, 731) after the court had sustained petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) finding he committed vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(2)), possessed tools for vandalism ( 594.2, subd. (a)), committed burglary ( 459), battery ( 243.2, subd. (a)), made false statements to police officers ( 148.9, subd. (a)), escaped from custody (Welf. & Inst. Code, 871, subd. (d)), committed grand theft ( 487, subd. (a)), unlawfully took a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), and violated probation conditions. This is Milton's second appeal. In his first Peo. v. Milton C. (May 25, 2006, B182169 [nonpub. opn.]) Court concluded the court erred by determining only one of the two maximum periods of confinement required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 731 when it committed Milton to CYA. Court reversed and remanded for the court to decide the proper confinement period. On remand it determined that period to be nine years two months. Court conclude that the court did not have to order a supplemental social study. Court affirm.

Appellant Efrain Cobos was found guilty by a jury of two counts of the lesser included offenses of attempted voluntary manslaughter and of the allegations that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the offenses, causing great bodily injuries. Appellant was found not guilty of two counts of attempted premeditated murder, robbery and grand theft. He was sentenced to 19 years four months; we discuss the sentence in detail below. Cobos appeals, contending that the imposition of an upper term 10-year enhancement was error under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856]. He also contends that the trial court erred in amending the information in a manner we detail in part 1 of the DISCUSSION. Court affirm.