CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
As ringleader, defendant committed a string of burglaries and auto thefts, as well as various other crimes, within a three-month period in Moreno Valley. Defendant appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for 13 counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, S 459), eight counts of which someone was home when the burglaries occurred (S 667.5, subd. (c)(21)); two counts of second degree burglary (S 459); eight counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)); five counts of grand auto theft with a prior auto theft conviction (Veh. Code, S 10851, subd. (a), S 666.5, subd. (a)); being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)); possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health and Saf. Code, S 11378); possessing paraphernalia for ingesting narcotics (Health and Saf. Code, S 11364); and being under the influence of narcotics (Health and Saf. Code, S 11550, subd. (a)).
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support 11 of the 15 burglary convictions since there was no evidence he entered the houses; there was insufficient evidence to support three of the five grand theft auto convictions and one of the convictions for receiving stolen property; and the court should have granted a mistrial based on jury deliberations misconduct. Court reject defendant's contentions and affirm the judgment. |
Defendant appeals from an order of recommitment after a jury determined he remains a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 6600 et seq.)
Defendant challenges the order on the ground the People failed to prove defendant suffered at least two qualifying convictions. Defendant further contends that the trial judge improperly acted as an advocate for the prosecution and committed prejudicial error by allowing the prosecution's experts to testify regarding legal issues. Court conclude defendant is collaterally estopped from contesting for the first time in the instant SVP proceedings the two predicate convictions. As to defendant's other contentions, court conclude there was no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment. |
After a struggle, defendant Robert Earl Sheppard, Jr. shot Richard Grandberry (Grandberry or victim) in the back, resulting in Grandberry suffering a collapsed lung. At trial, defendant argued he was acting in self defense against an enemy he long feared. The jury rejected the defense, finding defendant guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code, S 664/187, subd. (a)), being a felon in possession of a handgun (S 12021, subd. (c)(1)), and unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm on his person in public. (S 12031, subd. (a)(2)(D).) The jury also found that in the commission of the attempted murder, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon another person (SS 12022.7, subd. (a) and 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury to another person. (SS 12022.53 subd. (d) and 1192.7 subd. (c)(8).)
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct; (2) there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation; (3) his 33 year sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) the abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a sentence of 34 years. Court agree with the parties' stipulation that the abstract of judgment incorrectly indicates a 34 year sentence, which should be corrected to reflect the correct sentence of 33 years. In all other aspects however, court find no error and affirm the judgment. |
Brethren in Christ Community Services of Ontario, Inc. (Brethren) sued the Workforce Investment Board (the WIB) of San Bernardino County (the County) under the Ralph M. Brown Act (the Brown Act) (Gov. Code, S 54950.5 et seq.) to nullify the WIB's decision to recommend termination of Brethren's contract with the County. The trial court denied relief. Court affirm the judgment.
|
Under Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (a), defendant appeals his conviction of one count of violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, subdivision (a), manufacturing a controlled substance, for which he was sentenced to the midterm of five years, plus a three year consecutive term for a previous conviction for Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, and a one year consecutive term for the prior prison term, totaling nine years in prison.
Defendant's counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court's independent review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a personal brief but has not done so. The judgment is affirmed. |
The probation officer noted that minor had been granted the opportunity to mend her self destructive, negligent behavior with diversion programs, probation supervision, substance abuse counseling, counseling referrals, and educational assistance in the community, but to no avail. Minor's mother appeared fatigued by minor's behavior and reported that she was "stressed" and "helpless" in efforts to discipline minor. She also admitted that she had no control over minor.
Minor appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. 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. The judgment is affirmed. |
Maria Arroyo Puga petitions for a writ of review to inquire into and determine the lawfulness of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (Lab. Code, S 5950; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.494.) Puga contends the WCAB erred by not finding her claim for psychological injury compensable where she had not worked for the employer for at least six months (S 3208.3, subd. (d)) and that the WCAB failed to state the evidence relied on in determining her level of disability (S 5908.5). Court deny the petition.
|
After the trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, he pleaded no contest to possessing a destructive device or explosive on a public street, possessing a destructive device or explosive with the intent to injure or destroy property, transporting a destructive device, and possessing materials with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive. The court sentenced him to three years in state prison.
On appeal, Lamont challenged the trial court's denial of his suppression motion. Lamont argued that as a passenger in the car, he was seized when the police officer illegally stopped the car in which he was riding in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. In this court's prior published opinion People v. Lamont (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 404 (Lamont), court agreed and reversed the judgment. |
The parties have stipulated that the judgment in this anti SLAPP appeal be dismissed in order to facilitate a settlement, which calls for a joint application for a stipulated reversal of the trial court's rulings and related judgment.
Court accept the stipulation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), and grant their request for a stipulated reversal. Court find that mutually negotiated settlements actually further the interests of the anti SLAPP statute, which is designed to promote the early resolution of lawsuits that drain the parties' resources. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192 (Varian Medical Systems).) The parties have informed us that they have resolved the underlying dispute "and want it put behind them completely so that they can move on." The order and judgment of dismissal based on the granting of the anti SLAPP motion is reversed pursuant to the parties' stipulation, and the remittitur shall immediately issue when this opinion becomes final in this court. |
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, SS 288.5, subd. (a), 1203.066, subd. (b)) and admitted that he committed both counts against more than one victim (Pen. Code, S 1203.066, subd. (a)(7)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant raises issues relating to the ineffective assistance of counsel and a no contact order. Court conclude that the judgment should be modified to order defendant to have no contact with his minor victims. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
|
Defendant represented himself as a licensed contractor to COPE Centro Familiar (COPE), a non profit organization that provides childcare to economically disadvantaged families. COPE contracted with defendant to construct a daycare center and preschool classrooms. An investigation of the construction projects revealed that defendant did not have a contractor's license and was using another contractor's license number. Defendant subsequently pleaded no contest to one felony count of fraudulent use of a contractor's license number in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7027.3. The trial court placed defendant on probation for five years on the condition that he serve 180 days in county jail and pay victim restitution of $680,406.
On appeal, defendant contends that the restitution order must be reversed because (1) there is no credible evidence to support the amount of $62,698 included in the restitution order to reimburse COPE for costs incurred in attempting to complete the construction projects; (2) the trial court erred in failing to allow an offset of $178,670; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to make a proper evidentiary showing with respect to the offset claim. For reasons that court explain, court find no merit in defendant's contentions and therefore court affirm the judgment. |
A jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, S 212.5, subd. (c).) Defendant asserts the court erred in refusing to admit into evidence the statements of two unavailable witnesses who identified the perpetrator as an African American (defendant is White). He also claims that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after the jury learned that he had a criminal history and that he was carrying a knife at the time of his arrest. Finally, he raises several challenges to the court's jury instructions. Court find no errors and affirm the judgment.
|
The old saw is that "haste makes waste." When court act too quickly we err and end up with a poor result. Our review of the record in this case bears out the wisdom of this idiom. The trial court, spurred by counsel and what appears to be a persuasive and influential social worker, treated termination of parental rights and removal of these children from family placement as a foregone conclusion, and over the course of these proceedings often erred. One of these errors was consequential enough to warrant reversal and a limited remand. All of them are troubling. Athena H. and Israel P. were removed from the care of their mother, Jessica H., after she set her boyfriend's home on fire with the children inside. Since then, Jessica has been incarcerated or confined in a state mental hospital. The dependency proceedings resulted in two orders terminating parental rights as to Jessica and all known and alleged fathers.
Court conclude that the court and the Department of Social Services for the County of Lake (the Department) failed to comply with mandatory notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and we conditionally remand to the dependency court to require proper notice. Despite a record replete with deficiencies and inappropriate haste by the court and questionable handling of this case by the Department, careful review of the record reveals no other error that warrants reversal. |
In this consolidated appeal, appellant Everett C. Doughty, III, appeals a judgment after court trial in favor of respondents Todd and Lisa Beth in the parties' cross actions for declaratory relief regarding the fair market value of the subject real property and a postjudgment order awarding respondents attorney fees and expert witness fees. Appellant contends the court erroneously determined the date for valuation of the property, improperly considered the validity of the parties' lease option agreement and improperly awarded respondents attorney fees and costs. Court reject the contentions and affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023