CA Unpub Decisions

Frederico Y. appeals the juvenile court orders granting a petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, 777) and committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA). He contends that a remand is necessary under In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392 (Angela M.), to determine the need for an evaluation of special educational needs. Like the Angela M. court, Court affirm the order of commitment but remand the matter to the juvenile court for a determination whether a special needs evaluation should be conducted. (Id. at p. 1394.)

Charles David Venzor, Jr. appeals his conviction, by jury, of the forcible rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2)), and sodomy by force ( 286, subd. (c)(2)), of K.M. The jury further found that appellant inflicted great bodily injury on K.M. during both crimes. In the bifurcated portion of the trial, at which appellant waived jury, the trial court found that appellant was eligible for sentencing on the rape count pursuant to section 667.61, subdivision (a) because he had a prior conviction of sexual penetration with a foreign object. ( 289, 667.61, subd. (c),(d)(1).) The trial court further found that appellant had three prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), that he had one five-year prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(25)), and that he had served three prior prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) As a result, it sentenced appellant to a total term in state prison of 29 years plus 75 years to life.[2]
Appellant contends evidence of two prior sex offenses should have been excluded pursuant to Evidence Code sections 352 and 1101, subdivision (b), that admission of the evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108 violated his rights to due process, equal protection and a fair trial, that the sodomy conviction should be reversed because the trial court erred in answering questions posed by the jury during its deliberations, and that the trial court failed to make the factual findings required to impose five-year enhancements pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a). In light of Cunningham v. California ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856], the trial court's imposition of the upper sentence term on the sodomy count must be reversed and the matter remanded for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Patricia Broomfield appeals her conviction on the basis that the trial court modified her proposed special jury instruction concerning informants. Court affirm.

Esterina Tuason's lengthy employment in the University of California's University Office of Education Abroad Program (UOEAP) ended with a medical separation on May 15, 2003. She sued the Regents of the University of California and her supervisors on various employment discrimination and wrongful termination theories. The trial court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment. She contends the trial court erred because there are disputed issues of fact. Court affirm.

Christopher Bernd appeals the denial of a motion to set aside an order modifying his child support obligation. Court affirm the denial of the motion to set aside the modification but remand the matter to permit the amount of the child support arrearage to be recomputed in conformance with Code of Civil Procedure section 695.211, subds. (a), (b) and (c).

Michael Stewart Mullicane appeals from a conviction of child molestation with substantial sexual contact with the victim. He makes several evidentiary challenges regarding the admission of his statement to a detective, the admission of evidence regarding his prior offenses, and the exclusion of the victims school performance record. In addition, he contests the amount of the restitution fine. As mandated by statute, Court reduce the restitution fine to $10,000, modify the parole revocation fine to the same amount, and otherwise affirm.

Eric Ramos was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) with additional special allegations found true. On appeal, he contends that 1) the trial court erred when it refused to appoint his previously - retained counsel as court-appointed counsel; 2) the court should have given sua sponte jury instructions concerning accomplices; and 3) that his sentence enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d) must be vacated because of the merger doctrine and section 654. Court affirm.

Appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to a total of eight years imprisonment. He appeals the conviction and sentence, contending the court erred in denying his pre - trial Pitchess motion for discovery and in imposing an upper term sentence. Court conditionally reverse and remand for an in camera review of the personnel records of the two deputies who arrested appellant and appeared as witnesses at his trial.

A jury convicted appellant Harold Furlow of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) (count 1) and second degree burglary ( 459) (count 4). The trial court found true the allegations that appellant had suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony and a prior prison term ( 667, subd. (a)(1); 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667.5, subd. (b).)
The trial court granted appellants Romero motion and struck the prior conviction for purposes of sentencing under the three strikes law. The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of nine years in prison. The sentence consisted of the midterm of three years on count 1, a consecutive five-year enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and a consecutive one-year enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court stayed a sentence of two years on count 4 pursuant to section 654.
Appellant appeals on the ground that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdicts, and federal due process principles require that the judgment be reversed. Court affirm.

Michael Saltzman appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211), petty theft with a prior conviction ( 484, subd. (a), 666), possession of methadone pills (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), and possession of metal knuckles ( 12020, subd. (a)(1)). Saltzman admitted the prior conviction for purposes of the petty theft charge and an allegation that he had served a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to four years eight months in state prison. He contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever the robbery and petty theft with a prior count; (2) the court violated his constitutional rights by excluding testimony; (3) the court abused its discretion in denying his request for reappointment of counsel; and (4) he was denied adequate access to the law library. Court affirm.

Vivitar Corporation appeals from the judgment of costs entered in favor of Republic Fastener Mfg. Corp. after a jury awarded Republic damages in the amount of $241,228.96. Vivitar argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Republic $32,992.29 in prejudgment interest and $264,669.50 in attorney's fees. Court affirm.

Holding his snarling German shepherd by the leash, appellant Bahman Khodayari chased an animal control officer off the property of his auto repair shop. He then refused to cooperate with police officers who arrived to investigate what had happened. Count 1 of the information originally charged him with a felony, assault with a deadly weapon, a dog, but the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor before the trial. He was convicted on count 1 and on two other misdemeanor counts; assault on an animal control officer and obstruction of a police officer. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on summary probation for 36 months, with 180 days in county jail.
Appellant contends: (1) The evidence failed to establish that he committed an assault with a deadly weapon. (2) His trial counsel should have moved to suppress the observations of the officers who went onto his property to arrest him. (3) The trial court should not have refused to allow members of his family to speak at the sentencing hearing. Court find no error, and affirm.

Jonathan Allen James (James) appeals the judgment (order revoking probation) entered following his plea of guilty to the sale or transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced James to the previously suspended upper term of five years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Christopher Bernd appeals the denial of a motion to set aside an order modifying his child support obligation. Court affirm the denial of the motion to set aside the modification but remand the matter to permit the amount of the child support arrearage to be recomputed in conformance with Code of Civil Procedure section 695.211, subds. (a), (b) and (c).