CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant was convicted of, inter alia, burglary and committing a lewd act on a child.Court find his sentence for burglary must be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and he was improperly subjected to a $20 courtroom security fee. Court modify the judgment accordingly and affirm in all other respects.

Defendant Jeremy Dewayne Dennis was arrested after he sold $40 of rock cocaine to an undercover police officer on two occasions. The police initiated the undercover operation based on a confidential informants tip.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to the midterm of four years on count one and the low term of three years on count two, to be served concurrently. Defendant filed a notice of appeal with this court.
Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendants behalf. Court examine the entire record ourselves to see if any arguable issue is present.

After a jury found defendant Juan Rodriguez Soria guilty of two counts of first degree murder, the court sentenced him to two consecutive indeterminate terms of 25 years to life. His appeal raises two issues: the court erred in instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 640 rather than CALJIC No. 8.71, and the consecutive sentences violated his rights to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely). Because of the nature of the appeal Court need not summarize the facts upon which the conviction was based other than to note that defendant was the driver of a car from which a passenger fired a rifle killing two persons.

Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to strike the complaint of plaintiffs RSI Holding Corporation and RSI Home Products, Inc. under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.16 (anti-SLAPP motion; all further statutory references are to this code). They contend the court erred when it concluded the challenged statements did not involve a public issue. Court disagree and affirm.

Plaintiff sued defendant and appellant Robert Cissna (Cissna) for specific performance of a contract concerning the sale of real property. A default judgment was entered against Cissna and Cissna now appeals. Barnes has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. Cissna claims that, despite the fact the record contains a copy of a proof of service of notice of entry of judgment, he had no actual knowledge of the default judgment until shortly before he filed his notice of appeal. This being the case, he insists that the limitations period for filing a notice of appeal is inapplicable. The motion to dismiss is granted.

Paige F.s mother filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition asking the court to change its order refusing to mandate a bonding study. The court denied mothers petition without a full evidentiary hearing. On appeal mother contends her petition presented evidence of changed circumstances and that ordering a bonding study would serve Paiges best interests, and therefore the court erred by summarily denying it. Court disagree and affirm the courts order denying mothers petition.

Defendant was convicted after jury trial of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon within the meaning of sections 667 and 1192.7, and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim, a non-accomplice, within the meaning of sections 12022.7, subdivision (a), and 1203, subdivision (e)(3). Defendant admitted allegations that he was out of custody on bail at the time of the offense ( 12022.1) and that he had served three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in state prison, the sentence consisting of the upper term of four years on the assault with a deadly weapon offense with a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement and three consecutive one year terms for the prison priors.
On appeal defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. Defendant further contends that the imposition of the upper term violated his constitutional rights because the aggravating facts the court relied on to impose that term were not found by the jury to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Court disagree with both contentions, and therefore affirm the judgment.

With a 14 year suspended prison sentence for injuring and threatening his wife, Angela (Mrs. Tamboura), hanging over his head, defendant Aly Phillip Tamboura violated probation by disturbing her peace (Pen. Code, 273.6) and failing to pay child support. On February 2, 2006, the trial court revoked probation and ordered execution of sentence and committed defendant to prison for the previously imposed 14 years. On appeal, defendant raises sufficiency of the evidence of the violations, judicial impartiality, and due process issues.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred at his sentencing hearing in denying appellant's request for a continuance to retain private counsel and defense counsel's request for continuance to file a motion to withdraw his plea. Appellant further contends that his sentence was unauthorized in that the trial court used an enhancement as the base term. Court reverse to permit appellant to move to withdraw his plea and for the trial court to correct the sentence.

Defendant, the mother of a minor child, appeals from an order terminating her parental rights in the child and ordering a permanent plan of adoption. Court affirm.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant. Court hold there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the reason proffered by defendant for laying off Zientarski was a pretext for age discrimination. Court reverse the grant of summary judgment.

Defendant appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional order after he pleaded no contest to petty theft and possession of marijuana. Defendants counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised her client of his right to file a supplemental brief and none has been filed. Court have reviewed the record and find that there are no meritorious issues to be briefed or argued.

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 note initially that this appeal arises out of a plea of no contest, and that a certificate of probable cause was sought by appellant, and denied by the trial court. (Pen. Code, 1237.5.) Thus, Court's independent review does not include an inquiry into matters affected by that denial.

Kurtis E. appeals from orders entered on January 24, 2007, in the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court committing him to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for a period of one year. Appellants counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Court have reviewed the record on appeal and find no meritorious issues to be argued. Court affirm.