CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant pleaded no contest to five violations of the sex-offender registration provisions of Penal Code section 290: failing to update his registration within five days of his birthday ( 290, subd. (a)(1)(D) [count 1]), failing on or about August 4, 2003, to register a new address ( 290, former subd. (a)(1)(A); Stats. 2002, ch. 17, 1, eff. Mar. 28, 2002 [count 2]); failing on or about October 2, 2003, to register a new address ( 290, former subd. (a)(1)(A); Stats. 2003, ch. 634, 1.3, eff. Sept. 30, 2003 [count 3]), failing to notify the last registering agency of a change of address ( 290, former subd. (f)(1); Stats. 2003, ch. 634, 1.3, eff. Sept. 30, 2003 [count 4]), and failing to update registration within five days of release from custody ( 290, former subd. (e)(2); Stats. 2002, ch. 17, 1, eff. Mar. 28, 2002 [count 5]). Defendant admitted four prior convictions: three for purposes of section 1170.12 and subdivisions (b)-(i) of section 667, and one for purposes of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison on count 1, and to concurrent terms of four years each on counts 2 through 5. It struck the section 667.5, subdivision (b), prior pursuant to section 1385. On appeal, defendant maintains that his conviction for failing to update his registration as a sex offender within five days of his birthday must be stricken as imposed in excess of jurisdiction, that certain sentences constitute multiple punishments and must be stayed, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to substitute counsel. Court modify the judgment but affirm it as modified.

This is an appeal from the conviction following a jury trial of appellant Kevin Edward Clarke for: (1) murder, (2) attempted robbery, (3) burglary, (4) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, (5) assault with a firearm, and (6) firearm possession by a felon. In connection with the murder offense, the jury found appellant guilty of two felony murder special circumstances: (1) engaging in the commission or attempted commission of a robbery within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), and (2) engaging in the commission or attempted commission of a burglary within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). The jury also found true that appellant was armed in connection with all offenses where arming was alleged, and that he had previously been convicted of a serious felony and had served a prior prison term.
Appellant seeks to reverse his conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from judgments entered after he pleaded no contest in two different cases to possessing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377.) He contends (1) his waiver of Proposition 36 probation was not knowing and intelligent, (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) the court erred because it did not halt the proceedings and order a competency hearing, and (4) the court erred when imposing a restitution fine. Court agree the restitution fine was imposed incorrectly and order the appropriate modification. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Appellant 15 years of age at the time of the offenses in question, appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the San Francisco County Juvenile Court. In April 2006, in San Mateo County Juvenile Court, James admitted a misdemeanor offense and the court transferred the cause to San Francisco for disposition. In June 2006, a second petition was filed in San Francisco and the court sustained an allegation that he was a minor in possession of a firearm, declared him to be a ward of the court and placed him on in-home probation. He challenges solely the denial of a motion to suppress evidence in the San Francisco proceedings. Court conclude that his contention has merit, and therefore shall vacate the jurisdictional finding in that matter and remand for a new dispositional hearing on the matter that was transferred from San Mateo County.

A minor, admitted nine counts of lewd acts. Following a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court denied Z.P.s request for deferred entry of judgment and placed Z.P. in a residential treatment program. During the pendency of this appeal, the juvenile court modified its order and permitted Z.P. to be treated in the community. In light of the modification, Court reverse and remand for reconsideration of denial of deferred entry of judgment.

Defendant pled no contest to one count of possession of heroin, admitted two prior strikes, and was sentenced to four years in prison. Fullers counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Fuller has not filed a supplementary brief. Court find no arguable issues and affirm.

Petitioner (GGRC) petitions this court for a writ of prohibition and/or mandate prohibiting the San Mateo County Superior Court, Juvenile Division from compelling GGRCs participation as a party in the underlying juvenile delinquency proceedings pertaining to real party Marissa D. On March 2, 2007 we requested opposition from the real party in interest and notified the parties that the court may choose to act by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.) Both real party and county counsel indicated that neither would be filing an opposition to the petition; accordingly, we now direct the issuance of a peremptory writ.
Finally, we note the odd formulation of the courts order joining GGRC, but excusing its appearance if it provides certain information to the real party. At the hearing the court acknowledged that in this situation its powers were very limited. It indicated that in order to effect a change in GGRCs decision to deny services, real party would have to follow a civil remedy. All the court can do in this situation with a joinder is order that the paper trail be provided you so you can pursue that.As stated in the two joinder statutes discussed above, their purpose is to facilitate coordination and cooperation among the agencies/private service providers which are subject to each of the statutes; they are not intended to facilitate the discovery of an institutions internal documents by someone who has been denied services. Joining GGRC in this litigation is improper under the facts presented and clearly unauthorized.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, 211, count 1), assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2), count 2), shooting at an occupied motor vehicle ( 246, count 3), carrying a concealed firearm while an occupant of a vehicle ( 12025, subd. (a)(3), count 4), attempted murder ( 664/187, count 5), and carrying a loaded firearm while an active participant in a criminal street gang ( 12031, subd. (a)(1), (2)(C), count 6). In addition, gang enhancements ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A), (1)(C)) were found on counts 1 through 5, firearm enhancements under section 12022.5, subdivision (a) were found on counts 2 and 3, and firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivision (c) were found on counts 1, 3, and 5.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the filing of amendments to the information to add counts 5 and 6; that his convictions on counts 1, 4, 5 and 6, as well as the street gang findings, were not supported by substantial evidence; that the trial court committed instructional error; that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in various respects; and that errors were made in sentencing. Court affirm the judgment and remand the matter for resentencing.

Antonio Munoz, Jr. appeals a judgment following conviction of second degree robbery, burglary, and assault with a deadly weapon, with findings of personal use of a deadly weapon and two prior serious felony convictions alleged for sentence enhancement and recidivist sentencing. (Pen. Code, 211, 459, 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022, subd. (b)(1), 667, subds. (a) & (b)-(i), & 1170.12, subds. (a)- (d).) Court order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment, but otherwise affirm.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of robbery with a further finding that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (Pen. Code, 211, 12022.53, subd. (c), count 2) and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (id., 246, count 3). (Further section references are to the Pen. Code.) The jury acquitted defendant on a charge of attempted murder ( 664/187, count 1). Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of three years on count 2, with an enhancement of 20 years for firearm use. Sentence on count 3 was stayed under section 654.
Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery conviction and that the trial court prejudicially erred in (2) instructing on count 2, (3) failing to instruct on a lesser included offense of count 3, and (4) responding to a jury question on count 3. Court find merit in defendants third contention and reverse count 3 on that basis, rendering it unnecessary to address defendants fourth contention. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health Saf. Code, 11378) and possession of a smoking device ( 11364). Martinez admitted that he was out on bail in another case at the time of the offenses. (Pen. Code, 12022.1.) He was originally sentenced to three years four months in state prison, consisting of sixteen months on the methamphetamine possession count and a consecutive two-year term for the section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement. The trial court subsequently stayed the section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement. Martinez contends the prosecutor presented incorrect legal theories to the jury during closing argument and that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding that he intended to sell the methamphetamine found in his possession. Court affirm.

In his fourth trip before this court, plaintiff (Soni) appeals a judgment entered after the trial court confirmed an arbitration award against him and denied his subsequent request to amend his complaint. Court find no error, and affirm.

Defendant was convicted of four counts of kidnapping to commit a sex offense (counts 1, 3, 4 and 6), one count of attempted sodomy by force (count 2), one count of robbery (count 5), two counts of forcible oral copulation enhanced by kidnapping allegations (counts 7 and 8), one count of sodomy by force enhanced by a kidnapping allegation (count 9), and two counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object enhanced by kidnapping allegations (counts 10 and 11), with true findings on allegations that he had suffered one prior strike conviction that also qualified as a serious felony, and had served one prior prison term. (Pen. Code, 209, subd. (b)(1), 664, 286, subd. (c)(2), 211, 288a, subd. (c)(2), 289, subd. (a)(1), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (b).)[1] He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 185 years to life. Russell appeals, contending the trial court should have permitted him to discharge retained counsel, his motion for a new trial should have been granted on the ground of juror misconduct, and claiming there were instructional, sentencing, and Cunningham errors. Court agree with Russell that the trial court should have granted his post-verdict motion to discharge retained counsel. For this reason, we vacate the findings on the prior conviction allegations, the order denying his motion for new trial, and his sentence of 185 years to life, but otherwise affirm and remand for further proceedings.

A modification decision.