CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from the judgment following his jury trial and conviction of one count of first degree robbery and three counts of second degree robbery. The trial court found true prior serious felony conviction and prison term allegations. The trial court sentenced appellant to 110 years to life, including four consecutive 25-year-to-life terms, and a 10-year consecutive term for two prior serious felony convictions. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to investigating officers, that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of the robberies, and that he is entitled to one additional day of presentence conduct credit. Court agreed that appellant should receive one additional day of presentence conduct credit and affirmed all other aspects of the judgment.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for kidnapping during commission of a carjacking, kidnapping for robbery, second degree robbery, evading an officer with willful disregard, and leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 105 years to life in prison.
Defendant contends imposition of consecutive sentences violated his right to trial by jury. Court affirmed.

Appellant challenges his first degree murder and possession of a firearm convictions on the grounds the verdicts were not supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court erred by admitting photographs of appellant’s gang tattoos and instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.11.5. Court concluded appellant’s convictions on both counts were supported by ample evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting photographs of appellant’s gang tattoos, as they possessed substantial probative value and posed no risk of undue prejudice in light of the remaining evidence. The court also did not err by instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.11.5.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. The jury found him guilty of vandalism causing over $400 in damages and found true the allegations he had suffered two prior felony convictions. The trial court denied defendant’s request to strike one of his prior convictions and sentenced him to 25 years to life imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request and/or that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Court disagreed and affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance, transportation of a controlled substance and driving without a license. Following his conviction, the trial court found true the allegations that defendant suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony, five prior convictions for which he served prison terms, and a prior conviction of a drug-related offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 5 years for transportation of a controlled substance, doubled as a second strike to 10 years, with an additional 3 years for the prior conviction of a drug-related offense. It stayed sentence on the remaining charges and enhancements. On appeal, defendant claims error in the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence and in the imposition of the upper term sentence. Court rejected his claims of error and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction. A jury found him guilty of second degree burglary, after which the trial court sentenced him to the middle term of two years in state prison. On appeal, he claims instructional error violating his federal and state constitutional rights to due process of law. Court disagreed and affirmed the conviction.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of carjacking, robbery, and first degree murder, with further findings that he intentionally discharged a firearm during the commission of the murder and that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, that the convictions must also be reversed based on prosecutorial misconduct and trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to request an adequate instruction on immunized testimony, that the gang finding must be reversed because it was based on evidence admitted in violation of Miranda and the hearsay rule, and that a probation fine was improperly imposed. The Attorney General concedes there was no authority for the probation fine and asserts that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect that the gang enhancement requires defendant to serve a minimum of 15 years on his murder conviction. Court affirmed the judgment and order that the probation fine be stricken and the abstract of judgment be amended to reflect the gang finding.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for second degree vehicle burglary and petty theft with a prior. The trial court sentenced Malone to a term of five years in prison. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that Penal Code section 654 precluded the imposition of consecutive sentences on the offenses. As the People conceded, Defendant is correct. Court modified defendant’s sentence accordingly. In all other respects, court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pled no contest to a charge of mayhem in exchange for dismissal of two additional charges against him and the lower term sentence of two years. On appeal, defendant requests the court to independently review the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the search of his residence was justified as a proper parole search, defendant pled guilty to two counts of forgery, possession of a forged item and possession of a blank check. In accordance with the terms of a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a total term of five years. Defendant thereafter filed a notice of appeal. Court affirmed.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant entered a plea of no contest to continuous sexual abuse oral copulation of a person under the age of 16 and two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, which crimes were charged in a felony complaint. The five remaining counts, which also alleged the commission of various sex crimes, were dismissed. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement executed by defendant, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 14 years in state prison. Defendant thereafter filed a notice of appeal in which he specified that he was challenging the validity of his plea. Defendant also requested a certificate of probable cause, but the trial court denied his request.
Court examined the entire record and was satisfied that defendant’s counsel complied fully with his responsibilities. No arguable issues exist. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to voluntary manslaughter and further admissions that a principal was armed with a firearm and that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. Defendant submitted an argument, asserting the existence of an oral agreement regarding his plea that differed from the terms of a written agreement and his actual plea with respect to whether the gang enhancement could be imposed. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate summary judgment on a forfeited bail bond. Appellant contends the motion should have been granted because a timely request for extension was improperly rejected by a court clerk who mistakenly told appellant that judgment had already been entered. Court affirmed.

Mother of 12-year old appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. Court affirmed the order because the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother a contested hearing on the beneficial relationship exception when the offer of proof did not warrant a hearing.