CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant and her mother, co-defendant Danita Richardson, were charged by information filed on October 27, 2004, with first degree burglary with intent to commit a felony (Penal Code, 459, 460[1]) (count 1), felony vandalism ( 594, subd. (b)(1)) (count 2), assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3), and felony child abuse ( 273a, subd. (a)) (count 4). The charges arose from an altercation at the home of Margarita Gurule on May 31, 2004.
Appellant appeals her convictions and the probationary sentence imposed following a jury trial. Court affirm.

Defendant Omega Ray Ford appeals from a judgment convicting him of possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1).) He contends the trial court erred in imposing the upper term sentence based in part on aggravating circumstances that were unrelated to recidivism and not admitted or found true by the jury. In light of our Supreme Courts recent decision in People v. Black (July 19, 2007, S126182) Cal. 4th [2007 Cal. Lexis 7604] (Black II), Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Brandon S., a minor, appeals from the juvenile courts dispositional order continuing him as ward of the court after finding he committed three counts of second degree robbery, in violation of Penal Code section 211. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery allegations. Court conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant committed two of the robberies, but not all three. Accordingly, Court affirm the juvenile courts order in part and reverse in part.

In 2003 the juvenile court committed appellant Michael F. to the California Youth Authority (CYA) following his plea of no contest to a fourth supplemental petition alleging that he committed two counts of residential burglary. The court ordered appellant to pay $44,759 in victim restitution.
In 2006 appellant successfully completed parole and wardship was terminated. Thereafter the Perrys moved (1) to amend the restitution order to include parental liability and (2) for an income deduction order. In their moving papers the Perrys requested the court to issue the amended order as an order for restitution and abstract of judgment. Following a hearing, the court reissued the restitution order as an order for restitution and abstract of judgment pursuant to section 730.6 and Penal Code section 1214. As well, appellants parents were listed as jointly and severally liable. This appeal followed. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. 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 has been 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. court have reviewed the entire record, and Court have concluded there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.

Carl Kelly appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to charges stemming from an incident of domestic violence. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks for record review of the proceedings that led to defendants conviction. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Court have reviewed the record and affirm.

The juvenile court sustained allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging the juvenile committed assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, grand theft person and attempted second degree robbery. The juvenile appealed from the courts order of wardship, claiming the evidence was insufficient to establish the offenses of attempted second-degree robbery and grand theft person. In the event the evidence was sufficient to sustain the courts findings, the juvenile claimed he nevertheless could not be punished for both offenses because both theft crimes were committed with the same intent and objective against the same person. Finally, he argued the juvenile court erred in setting his maximum theoretical term of confinement.
In our initial decision we concluded the evidence did not support a finding the juvenile took the property from the person of the victim as is required for grand theft person. We thus reduced the offense in count two to the misdemeanor offense of petty theft, a lesser included offense of grand theft person, and affirmed the courts findings in other respects. The Supreme Court granted the Peoples petition for review. In a companion case to this case the Supreme Court in In re Jesus O. concluded the evidence of the juveniles intent to steal, plus the later taking of property which had been on the victims person, was, in combination, sufficient to sustain the grand theft person offense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed our decision finding to the contrary and remanded the present matter to this court for reconsideration in light of its decision in In re Jesus O. Court affirm.

Larry Seijas was convicted of second degree murder and we affirmed his conviction in an unreported opinion. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus Seijas contends his conviction was based on the false testimony of the prosecutions chief witness, Jonathan G. We conclude Seijas has failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence Jonathan gave false testimony concerning Seijas involvement in the murder. Therefore, court deny the writ.
Finally, Court recognize that if Jonathan falsely testified about Seijas involvement in the shooting such false testimony, depending on its content, may have been substantially material and probative on the issue of Seijas guilt. Accordingly, Court's denial of the present writ petition is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition after the statute of limitations on perjury expires in November 2008, or sooner should evidence become available which adequately supports Seijas contention.

Appellant Micah Jerrod Mason challenges his carjacking and robbery convictions on the grounds they are not supported by the evidence, defense counsel labored under a conflict of interest and rendered ineffective assistance, the prosecutions failure to disclose certain photographs violated due process, an officers conduct in citing a potential witness with obstructing justice violated appellants right to compulsory process, and the court improperly punished him for robbing and carjacking the same victim. Appellant also requests that this court review the record of in camera proceedings regarding his motion for discovery of police officer personnel records and complaints. Court conclude ample evidence supports appellants convictions. Appellant did not establish that his attorney had an actual or a potential conflict of interest. The prosecutions failure to disclose photographs purportedly taken by the Riverside Police Department did not violate due process because the photographs were not material. Appellants right to compulsory process was not violated by charging a man who lied to officers on the scene with obstructing justice. Penal Code section 654 requires that appellants sentence for robbery be stayed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling upon appellants discovery motion.

Appellant Micah Jerrod Mason challenges his carjacking and robbery convictions on the grounds they are not supported by the evidence, defense counsel labored under a conflict of interest and rendered ineffective assistance, the prosecutions failure to disclose certain photographs violated due process, an officers conduct in citing a potential witness with obstructing justice violated appellants right to compulsory process, and the court improperly punished him for robbing and carjacking the same victim. Appellant also requests that this court review the record of in camera proceedings regarding his motion for discovery of police officer personnel records and complaints.
Court conclude ample evidence supports appellants convictions. Appellant did not establish that his attorney had an actual or a potential conflict of interest. The prosecutions failure to disclose photographs purportedly taken by the Riverside Police Department did not violate due process because the photographs were not material. Appellants right to compulsory process was not violated by charging a man who lied to officers on the scene with obstructing justice. Penal Code section 654 requires that appellants sentence for robbery be stayed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling upon appellants discovery motion.

Rudy Plazola, Jr., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Marisol Morales (Rudy), appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Los Angeles Unified School District (the District) in this action for negligence and negligence per se. Because Court find triable issues of material fact, Court reverse.

Defendant, Michael Anthony Loza, appeals from his convictions for: continuous sexual abuse (Pen. Code,[1] 288.5, subd. (a)); forcible rape with great bodily injury ( 261, subd. (a)(2), 667.61, subd. (b)); two counts of aggravated sexual assault on a child ( 264.1, 269, subd. (a)(2)); two counts of assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)); three counts of corporal injury to a spouse ( 273.5, subd. (a)); misdemeanor battery ( 242); three counts of forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)); and two counts of criminal threats. ( 422.) He received a determinate term of 90 years, 4 months. He also received 3 consecutive terms of 15 years to life. The determinate and indeterminate terms were ordered to run consecutively.
Defendant contends: he was improperly convicted of both violations of section 288.5 and two aggravated sexual assault offenses; section 654, subdivision (a) was violated; there was insufficient evidence to support sentencing pursuant to section 667.61, subdivision (b); the trial court improperly imposed the upper term in counts 1, 13, 14 and 15 and consecutive terms in counts 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12; there was instructional error; and the misdemeanor battery conviction must be reversed. Court agree with defendant that counts 1 and 7 must be reversed. Court affirm the judgment in all other respects.

A modification decision.

While representing himself, Gary B. Morgan pleaded no contest to one count of selling, transporting and offering to sell cocaine base and was sentenced to a three-year prison term. We appointed counsel to represent Morgan on appeal. In his brief on appeal and his concomitantly filed petition for writ of habeas corpus, Morgan contends the trial court had a duty under Penal Code section 1368, subdivision (a),[1]and the due process clause of the United States Constitution to revoke his previously granted in propria persona status and appoint counsel to represent him during his pre plea section 1368 competency hearing. Because Morgan failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause permitting him to challenge the validity of his plea, Court dismiss the appeal. ( 1237.5.) Because it is apparent from the record the court did not hold a section 1368 competency hearing, Court summarily deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.