CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant entered an open plea of guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (count 1 Pen. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), one count of receiving stolen credit cards (count 2 496, subd. (a)), and one count of identity theft (count 3 530.5, subd. (d)). In addition, he admitted the truth of several enhancement allegations, including three prior prison term allegations ( 667.5 subd. (b)) and one prior strike conviction ( 667 subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12 subd. (c)(1)). On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in declining to strike his prior strike conviction and in determining he was ineligible for referral to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). For the reasons set forth below, Court conclude the trial court acted appropriately and affirm the judgment.

Diane M. (Mother) is the mother of three children. All three children have been removed from Mothers custody; one child is in the custody of his father, and another was placed with a grandmother. This appeal involves the youngest child, two-year-old Jeremiah. Mother appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights as to Jeremiah. Her sole contention is that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

In the course of investigating the possibility that utility pole ground wires were being stolen and then sold to a recycling center in Needles, the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department contacted the recycling center and learned that the center had received suspicious wire scrap metal from certain individuals whom employees were able to describe. The following day, defendant and his coparticipant were contacted at the same recycling center and questioned. Defendant insisted that he had obtained the wire off downed poles left in the desert.
Defendant was arrested and charged with grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)). Subsequently, defendant, represented by counsel, pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)) in exchange for a maximum prison lid of no more than two years in state prison. Following a sentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced to two years in state prison.
Defendant appealed from matters occurring after the plea or based on the sentence, failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
Court offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. In his supplemental brief, defendant makes arguments related to four purported arguable issues: (1) failure to see the judge in a timely manner; (2) his innocence, (3) the pressure he felt by the officer in charge in pleading guilty, and (4) his unfair sentence. Court have reviewed the entire record and the contentions both of counsel and defendant, and Court have found no arguable issues.

The court readjudged appellant, Emilio A., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst., 602) after Emilio admitted allegations charging him with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). On appeal, Emilio contends: 1) the probation department prepared an inadequate social study report and 2) the court abused its discretion when it committed him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Court affirm.

A Kern County jury found Eduardo Gutierrez (Appellant) guilty of two counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 664) with a single enhancement for using a firearm causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced Appellant to two consecutive life sentences with the possibility of parole for the attempted murders plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motions for new counsel and in imposing consecutive life sentences. Court affirm.

By information filed September 6, 2006, it was alleged appellant committed attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 212.5, subd. (c), 664)[1] and that he had suffered a prior felony conviction that qualified as a strike[2]and as a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)), and that he had served four separate prison terms for prior felony convictions ( 667.5, subd. (b).) Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant himself, in response to this courts invitation to supplemental briefing, has submitted a brief in which he argues, as best Court can determine, that (1) he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, and (2) his plea was neither knowing, voluntary nor intelligent. Court affirm.

The court readjudged appellant, Manuel B., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) after Manuel admitted allegations charging him with second degree robbery (count 1/Pen. Code, 212.5, subd. (c)), a gang enhancement (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. b)(1)) in that count, and violating his probation (count 8/ 777). On December 8, 2006, the court committed Manuel to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of confinement of nine years four months. On appeal, Manuel contends the court abused its discretion when it committed him to the DJJ. Court affirm.

Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 to 8.452) to vacate the dispositional orders of the juvenile court denying reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his alleged daughter, R. Court deny the petition.

Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 to 8.452) to vacate the dispositional orders of the juvenile court denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter R. Court deny the petition.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, appellant takes issue with two aspects of his sentence. First, appellant contends that the trial court violated his due process rights when it punished him for pleading not guilty and exercising his right to trial. Second, the trial court erred when it imposed a probation supervision fee as a condition of his probation. For reasons that follow, Court agree with both of appellant's contentions. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment below.

Appellant Theresa L. appeals from an order terminating the guardianship of T. On appeal, she contends that the trial court did not follow certain procedures to ensure T.s safety and there was insufficient evidence to support the order. Court find no error and affirm.

At issue in this appeal is the accrual date of the plaintiffs causes of action against the defendant for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The plaintiff was the victim of embezzlement by an employee, whom the defendant had recruited and placed with the plaintiff. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff should have discovered the embezzlement sooner, and it therefore sustained the defendants demurrer, brought on statute of limitations grounds. The plaintiff brought this appeal from the ensuing judgment. Applying the delayed discovery rule to the plaintiffs claims of independent wrongdoing by defendant, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiffs claims barred as a matter of law. Court therefore reverse the judgment.

Raul Ezequiel Rodriguez appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree burglary, making a criminal threat, felony vandalism, and knowingly violating a restraining order. He contends the trial court made a number of prejudicial instructional errors, and he claims the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for knowingly violating a protective order. He also argues that, under Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), the trial court erred by imposing the upper term on his burglary conviction. Court reverse the misdemeanor conviction for knowingly violating a restraining order. Court also reverse appellants sentence on the burglary conviction and remand for resentencing in light of Cunningham. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

This appeal is taken from orders granting summary judgment in favor of 2122 Lakeshore Apartments, LP (Lakeshore), Crown Fortune Properties, Inc. (Crown Fortune), and Santino DeRose (DeRose) (collective referred to as respondents) and against Isaac Kashama Kalonji (appellant). Court affirm.