CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a court trial during which the court found him guilty of two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery (Pen. Code, 243.4, subd. (e)(1); counts 1 & 2), one count of sexual penetration by a foreign object (id., 289, subd. (a)(1); count 3) and one count of forcible oral copulation (id., 288a, subd. (c)(2); count 4) against L.W., and two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery against K.R. (id., 243.4, subd. (e)(1); counts 5 & 6). Court affirm.

Marcellus Davis, Jr. sued L & R Automotive Supply Co. in small claims court and lost at a hearing presided over by a temporary judge. Davis complained to the supervising judge that the temporary judge was biased against him because of his race and mental disability. The complaint was referred to the Los Angeles County Superior Courts Temporary Judges Committee, which reviewed the record of the small claims proceedings, found no evidence of bias or unfairness, and (by letter from Comr. Douglas G. Carnahan) so advised Davis. Dissatisfied, Davis complained to the presiding judge (Hon. William A. MacLaughlin), who referred the matter to the assistant presiding judge (Hon. Stephen J. Czuleger), who reviewed the entire file, then wrote to Davis to tell him his claims were without merit and the case had been closed.

Davis then filed a pro se complaint against the judge pro tem, the commissioner, and the supervising, presiding and assistant presiding judges, alleging a conspiracy to deny his constitutional right to due process that caused him to suffer emotional distress. The judicial officers demurred on the ground of judicial immunity and the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Davis appeals. The judgment is affirmed.

Joseph R. appeals from the order of wardship entered following a finding that he committed misdemeanor vandalism. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding. Court affirm.

A mothers parental rights were terminated and the childs father was granted legal and physical custody, with monitored visits for the mother. The mother appeals. Court affirm.

Defendant Damon Louis Matheus appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court found him guilty of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)) and found true the allegations of three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and five prior convictions qualifying as strikes ( 667, subds. (b)(i); 1170.12). The court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life, and ordered the sentence on the prior prison term allegations to be stricken. The judgment is affirmed.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this matter. After examining the record counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Id. at p. 441.) We set out below a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, the punishment imposed, defendants contention of appeal and why it fails. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.) Court find no basis for overturning the courts finding. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Van Steven Muse was convicted of one count each of commercial burglary (count 1), petty theft with a prior based on an admitted 2004 grand theft conviction (count 2), assault (count 3), and battery (count 4). (Pen. Code, 459, 666, 240, 242.) He was sentenced to state prison for a term of three years. Muse appeals, contending there were instructional and sentencing errors. Court affirm.

Steven Sevillano was convicted of one count of making a criminal threat (count 1), one count of attempted premeditated murder (count 3), and one count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (count 4), with true findings on allegations that he was on bail at the time of the count 3 and 4 offenses, that he personally used a knife and inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the crimes charged in counts 3 and 4, and that he had suffered one prior conviction that qualified as a strike and as a serious felony. (Pen. Code, 422, 664, 187, subd. (a), 273.5, subd. (a), 12022.1, 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (e), 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i).) He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 26 years to life. Sevillano appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the criminal threat count. Court affirm.

In a felony complaint, the People charged defendant Mario Miramontes Medina with kidnapping for child molesting (Pen. Code, 207, subd. (b); count 1) and committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (id., 288, subd. (a); count 2). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 2, and the trial court sentenced him to the low term of three years in state prison and dismissed count 1. Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants counsel has complied fully with his responsibilities. No arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The order is affirmed.

Defendant John V. Bowler appeals from a judgment convicting him of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code 11377, subd. (a); undesignated section references are to the Health & Safety Code) following entry of a no contest plea. On appeal, defendant contends his suppression motion was wrongly denied and that the alcohol use condition of his probation was wrongly imposed. Court reverse and remand.

Dorothy King, the surviving spouse of Clyde King, appeals from an order that found she was not entitled to a distributive share of a trust through Clyde because he did not survive distribution as required by the trust. (Prob. Code, 1304, subd. (a).) Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Kenneth Williams Jones was convicted by a jury of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a); count 1). The jury made a true finding the transportation was not for personal use (Pen. Code, 1210, subd. (a)), and Jones admitted he had a prison prior conviction (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b), 668). He was sentenced to a middle term of three years for count 1 and a consecutive one-year term for the prior conviction for a total term of four years.

Jones contends his conviction must be reversed because the court failed to instruct sua sponte on the not-for-personal use allegation, the instructions deprived him of his right to present a defense, the prosecutor committed misconduct by raising his poverty as a motive for the drug sales, and the court should have granted a new trial based on the prosecutorial misconduct. Court affirm the judgment.

Arthur Francis Rankin pled guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5)[1] (count 1). Rankin also admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). At sentencing, the trial court determined that Rankin was presumptively ineligible for probation, pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(3). The trial court further found that this case was not an "unusual case within the meaning of the sentencing rules," and denied probation. The court sentenced Rankin to a total term of five years in prison.

On appeal, Rankin claims the trial court erred under People v. Lewis (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 837, 854 (Lewis), in determining that he was presumptively ineligible for probation pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(3), because the court did not find that Rankin willfully inflicted great bodily injury. Rankin also claims that the trial court erred in failing to find that his case was an unusual one, meriting a sentence of probation. Rankin further claims that he must be allowed to withdraw his plea because the trial court failed to "follow through on [its] representation" that the court would find the case to be an unusual one, and would grant him probation if it were determined that Rankin had a mental disorder for which there was effective treatment available. Court affirm the judgment.