CA Unpub Decisions

Tracy E. Jones entered negotiated guilty pleas to four counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, 211.) He admitted seven prior strikes ( 667 subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668), two prior serious felony convictions ( 667 subd. (a)(1), 668) and serving three prior prison terms ( 667.5 subd. (b), 668). The court sentenced him to prison for 48 years to life: 25 years to life for robbery (count one) with two prior strikes enhanced by two five year terms for prior serious felony convictions, with consecutive one year sentences on the remaining three robbery convictions (counts 2 4) (one third the middle term), enhanced by two five year terms for the prior serious felony convictions. Jones contends the sentence was unauthorized because the trial court erred in applying the prior serious felony enhancements to both the determinate terms and the indeterminate term and abused its discretion in refusing to strike the prior strike on all the convictions.

Jacqueline Lacy Robinson appeals a judgment following her guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit first degree robbery in concert (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1), 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)) and two counts of attempted first degree robbery in concert ( 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A), 664). On appeal, she contends the trial court erred by: (1) not referring her to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) for a section 1203.03 diagnostic evaluation before sentencing, as the trial court promised on acceptance of her guilty plea; and (2) imposing punishment for both the conspiracy and attempted robbery offenses in violation of section 654. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

Defendant Corwin Anthony Contursi appeals an order granting a permanent injunction prohibiting him from harassing plaintiff David Sean McKinley and his son Joshua (Josh). On appeal, Contursi appears to contend the trial court erred by: (1) excluding third party declarations and other evidence; and (2) not continuing the evidentiary hearing. He also argues that documents he obtained after the hearing show McKinley made material misrepresentations to the court.
Court affirmed.

Plaintiff Corwin Anthony Contursi appeals an order denying his petition for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants David Sean McKinley and his son Joshua (Josh) from harassing him. On appeal, Contursi appears to contend the trial court erred by: (1) excluding third party declarations and other evidence; and (2) not continuing the evidentiary hearing. He also argues that documents he obtained after the hearing show McKinley made material misrepresentations to the court. Court affirmed.

A jury convicted Rick Armand Lyman of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. He appeals, contending the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence as the fruit of an illegal search, and in failing to dismiss a prior strike conviction. Court reject his contentions and affirm the judgment

In 2003, Daniel and Shilin Hale separated after a seven-year marriage and, in March 2004, a judgment incorporating a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered terminating their marriage. The MSA resolved property division and custody issues, imposed family support and child support obligations on Daniel, and resolved other matters. In late 2005 Daniel filed an Order to Show Cause (OSC) seeking to reduce his support obligations and alter the custody arrangement. On June 20, 2006, the court granted Daniel some, but not all, of the relief sought by his OSC, including a reduced amount for spousal and child support.
In July 2006 Daniel filed another OSC (the July OSC) seeking an order that, among other things, would declare the June 20 order reducing his child and spousal support obligations retroactive to December 2005. The court's September 2006 order denied these requests and Daniel timely appealed the September 2006 order entered in response to the July OSC.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Priscilla G. appeals findings and orders entered at the initial stage of the permanency planning hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, including the denial of her section 388 petition. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
Priscilla G.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

Tina H. seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Tina contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the Agency provided reasonable services. Court conclude that the court's finding of reasonable services is supported by substantial evidence, and deny the petition.

A jury convicted defendant Thomas DeWayne Johnson of one count of kidnapping to commit rape/oral copulation (Pen. Code,[1] 209, subd. (b)(1)), one count of rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)), and one count of oral copulation by force. ( 288a, subd. (c)(2).) The jury found true the enhancement allegations that the victim had been kidnapped and the movement substantially increased her risk of harm. ( 667.61, subd. (d)(2).) Defendant admitted he had two prior serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)), and two prior strikes. ( 667, subds. (c) & (e).)

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed inadmissible identity evidence and refused to strike his priors. He also alleges that his 185-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and the imposition of two life sentences for two sex offenses committed against one victim on one occasion was error. Court conclude that the trial court was correct in admitting identity evidence and denying defendants Romero motion. Court also conclude that defendants sentence was not cruel and unusual. However, Court find that defendant can only be sentenced to a single life term for only one of the strike sex offenses he was convicted of, hence Court reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Matthew Steven Cross appeals from his conviction of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a), (count 1)) and two counts of felony vehicle theft with a prior vehicle theft conviction ( 666.5, subd. (a); Veh. Code, 10851 (counts 2 and 3).) Defendant contends that through both instructional error and error in response to jury inquiries, the trial court misled the jury into convicting him based on an erroneous standard of aider and abettor liability, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of every element of the charged offense, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Defendant further contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike one of defendants strike priors. Court find no error, and Court affirm.

Defendant Riad Jacob Khouri appeals the trial courts order assessing him for the costs of a presentence probation investigation and attorneys fees. The Attorney General agrees that the order must be reversed and the matter remanded.

Defendant appeals after summary judgment was granted in favor of Plaintiff and Respondent De Luz Real Estate, Inc. (De Luz) in its action seeking damages for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, and common counts (quantum meruit). Court affirm.

Emily G. (mother) appeals from the termination of her parental rights as to her son, Jose M. (child) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends that (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in removing the child from the maternal grandmothers home, and (2) the court should have found, based on mothers visitation, contact, and the special circumstances of this case that a plan of legal guardianship or long term foster care was in the childs best interest. Court find no error, and Court affirm.

Irene D. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights to A.D. and I.D. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Court affirmed.