CA Unpub Decisions

On December 20, 2005, defendant waived a preliminary examination and entered a guilty plea to a charge of violating Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(1), a felony. The charge arose from his possession of a pair of brass knuckles on or about December 1, 2005. Defendant also admitted that he had suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felonyto wit, arson in violation of section 451, subdivision (d)in 1999. Count 2, which charged a misdemeanor, was dismissed. Appellant was represented by appointed counsel Laurence Meyer. The case was set for further proceedings on December 28, 2005, and sentencing on January 23, 2006.
On December 28, 2005, defendant appeared and, according to the minute order, attorney Laurence Meyer was confirmed as counsel of record. On January 23, 2006, the date set for sentencing, defendant requested leave and was granted permission to withdraw his plea and admission, on the basis he had been misadvised regarding eligibility for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center. At the hearing, after defendant withdrew his plea, Mr. Meyer and the court had the following exchange.

On March 20, 2006, a criminal complaint was filed alleging appellant, conspired with his wife, Cynthia Morlino to offer to sell or furnish marijuana to a person held in a state prison (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1) & 4573.9, count one),[1]Ortiz and Morlino offered to sell or furnish marijuana to a person held in state prison ( 4573.9, count two), and Ortiz and Morlino unlawfully brought a controlled substance into a state prison ( 4573, count three).
On July 20, 2006, Ortiz appeared in court and entered into a plea agreement wherein he would admit count three and the other counts would be dismissed. Ortiz would be given the three year midterm. Ortiz was advised of the consequences of his plea and given his constitutional advisements. Ortiz waived his right to a preliminary hearing. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Ortiz pled guilty to count three. Ortiz waived preparation of a probation report and to his right to appeal. The court sentenced Ortiz to the three-year midterm to be served consecutively to the sentence for which Ortiz was already in prison. The court imposed a restitution fine. Appellant has not obtained a certificate of probable cause.
Ortizs appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Ortiz was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on November 7, 2006, Court invited Ortiz to submit additional briefing.
Ortiz responded with a letter asserting his plea was not knowing and intelligent because Morlinos freedom was at stake. Ortiz asserts that after a meeting with his attorney and Morlinos attorney, if he admitted the allegations, she would be granted probation. Ortiz states he is unaware of Morlinos sentence. Ortiz asserts error because the trial court severed his case from Morlinos case. Ortiz states he is unaware of his wifes whereabouts.

Appeal from a judgment denying appellant's petition for writ of mandate, which sought to require the County of Los Angeles (county) and its sheriff, to return property taken from plaintiff upon his arrest, or its monetary value. Court disagree on both grounds, and reverse the judgment.

After exhausting his administrative remedies plaintiff brought this action against a hospital and individual members of its judicial review committee. Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from the hospital's revocation of his staff privileges.

Father challenges an order of the Alameda County Juvenile Court, which set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for chuild. court deny Father's petition on the merits.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of assault with deadly weapons and/or with force likely to produce great bodily injury. Defendant's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting this court to make an independent review of the record. court have done so and, despite one conspicuous mistake in the proceedings below, we find no arguable basis for reversal and shall therefore affirm the judgment.

appellant was convicted of petty theft with a prior and sentenced to 32 months in state prison. Appellant's attorney has raised no issues 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.) Appellant has also filed a pro se brief. Court affirm.

Appellant was sentenced to the aggravated term of five years after being found in violation of his conditions of probation on a conviction for robbery. Appellant contends the court erred in imposition of this sentence. Court reject appellant's arguments and affirm, although we modify the judgment with respect to the restitution fine imposed.

Defendant appeals from an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to four years in prison. Defendant's principal contention on appeal is that his due process rights were violated because the People's motion to revoke his probation did not provide him with sufficient written notice of the charges against him. He also contends that he was entitled to a separate written statement of the trial court's reasons for revoking his probation and that the trial court should have released to him the complaining witness's psychiatric records.
Court conclude that the documents attached to the People's motion to revoke provided Anderson with constitutionally adequate notice of the charges against him. Court further conclude that the written reporter's transcript of the trial court's ruling on the motion to revoke satisfies the requirement that Anderson receive a written statement of reasons. Finally, court find no error in the trial court's refusal to release the complaining witness's confidential psychiatric records. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment.

In an accompanying petition for a writ of habeas corpus, defendant repeats these assertions and also claims his constitutional due process rights were violated when the court took his plea rather than suspend all proceedings for an incompetency hearing. Defendant is not entitled to relief on direct appeal or by habeas corpus.

Defendants and cross complainants Cu N. Phan and Khiem T. Tran appeal from a judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff and cross defendant AMC, Inc. dba Star Real Estate (AMC) and cross defendant Don Enright. They contend the trial court erred in determining AMC and Enright were the prevailing parties and awarding them attorney fees. Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Paul C. Estebo appeals from an order that set aside a stipulated judgment in this rescission and quiet title action against Erla Navil Gonzalez and Maria Trinidad. The stipulation, between Estebo and Trinidad, purported to cut off Gonzalezs title. Estebo argues no grounds were shown to set aside the judgment. Court disagree and affirm.

The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends that the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) exception should have been applied and that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial courts finding that the exception was inapplicable. Substantial evidence supports the courts finding. Court affirm.

Devin Maurice Harmon appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on numerous counts of first degree residential burglary and receiving stolen property, and one count of receiving a stolen vehicle. Harmon contends he cannot be convicted of receiving the same property he stole from the burglary victims, and his conviction of receiving a stolen vehicle is not supported by substantial evidence. Court agree his conviction of receiving a stolen vehicle is not supported by substantial evidence and reverse the judgment as to that count only.