CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant challenges his false imprisonment by violence, criminal threats, and forcible rape convictions on the grounds that permitting the jury to consider prior uncharged sexual assaults violated due process, the trial court erred by refusing to reread the cross-examination requested by the jury, and violated due process by imposing upper, full, consecutive terms on the basis of facts found by the court, rather than the jury. Court concluded the jury’s consideration of evidence of a prior sexual assault by appellant did not violate due process. However, the court’s error in refusing to reread the cross-examination testimony, as requested by the jury, requires reversal.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of four counts of committing lewd acts on a 14 or 15-year-old child by a person more than 10 years older and two counts of oral copulation of a person under the age of 16. The trial court sentenced appellant consecutively on each of the counts to an aggregate state prison term of five years four months. Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence, (2) his convictions must be reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the matter must be remanded for resentencing because imposition of consecutive sentences violated his rights to a determination by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of facts necessary to increase a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum, as set forth in Blakely v. Washington. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of three counts of resisting an executive officer, with findings that the offenses were committed with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist criminal gang conduct. Defendant was sentenced to nine years in prison. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement and that he should not have been sentenced to the upper term for each of the offenses. In a supplemental brief, he asks this court to review the sealed transcripts of the hearings which were held in response to his Pitchess motion. Court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted by jury of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale. Defendant raises the following four issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying the motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant, who was a material witness; (2) the trial court erred in ruling that defendant could not question the investigating officer about the existence of the informant; (3) defendant was deprived of the right to present an entrapment defense because of the trial court’s refusal to disclose the identity of the informant and prohibition against questioning as to the informant’s existence; and (4) defendant could not be convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale on an aiding and abetting theory because the person allegedly aided was a police informant who lacked the intent to possess the methamphetamine for sale. Finding no reversal error, court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for two counts of kidnapping to commit robbery and two counts of carjacking, with firearm use and principal armed findings. Sentenced to state prison for life plus ten years, defendant claims there was trial and sentencing error. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment declaring him a ward of the court and ordering his confinement for a period not to exceed 21 years and 4 months for his sexual assault of a female acquaintance. Because he raises no arguable issues for appeal, court affirmed.

Petitioner was the biological father of minor. The dependency court denied petitioner’s request for presumed father status and family reunification services and set the proceeding for a permanency planning hearing. Petitioner filed a petition for extraordinary writ review. Court granted the writ.

Defendant carried his 10-year-old daughter onto Interstate 80 and ran into the path of a semi truck. Defendant was killed and he was seriously injured. A jury convicted him of first degree murder but deadlocked on the issue of sanity. Following a declaration of mistrial, a second jury found him sane. At the sanity trial, the jury was informed that defendant had been found guilty of premeditated murder and that fact was argued by the prosecutor as bearing on defendant’s sanity. This court affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court denied review.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to first degree robbery in concert and admitted that a principal was armed in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations and a sentencing lid of four years. Defendant requested the court independently review the record. The judgment is modified, dismissing the remaining counts and awarding five conduct days for a total of 44 days of presentence custody credit. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect five conduct days and a total of 44 days of presentence custody credit and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

On February 9, 2004, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the January 12, 2004 default judgment dissolving his marriage to Pilar M. Peralta. According to the notice of appeal, the trial court found Cardenas in default after he failed to submit an application for waiver of court fees and costs. Attached as an exhibit to the notice of appeal was his proposed response to the dissolution petition.
The appendix was due on October 12, 2006. It was not filed. Court therefore dismissed the appeal.

Defendant pleaded guilty to eight counts of robbery, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, and forcible false imprisonment. Threat admitted personal use of a deadly weapon, a box cutter, in four counts, and a knife, in one count; one prior prison term; one prior serious felony conviction; and two strike priors. The trial court struck one of Threat's strike priors and sentenced him to prison for 34 years and 8 months as follows: the upper term of 5 years for count 1, and consecutive one-third middle terms on the remaining counts, each term doubled for the strike prior; a one-year term for the knife enhancement attached to count 1; and consecutive four-month terms for the remaining knife enhancements. The court also imposed a consecutive five-year term for the serious felony prior. Defendant contends that under section 654, the court erred by failing to stay both the consecutive sentence for assault in count 2, and the sentence enhancement for personal use of a deadly weapon in count 4.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant pleaded no contest to multiple drug-related charges and prior drug conviction enhancements, as well as other recidivism-related enhancements, and the trial court sentenced him to 12 years in state prison. On appeal, Defendant asserts the trial court committed sentencing error by: (1) misunderstanding its discretionary power to strike one of the section 11370.2 enhancements under Penal Code section 1385; (2) improperly computing his sentence by imposing the section 11370.2 enhancements on specific counts instead of the aggregate sentence; and (3) erroneously using his prior drug convictions as foundation for imposing both the aggravated term on count 1 and the section 11370.2 enhancements. Court agreed that the section 11370.2 enhancements should have been imposed on Defendant's aggregate sentence and directed the trial court to modify its minute order and amend the abstract of judgment to correct the error. In all other respects, court affirmed the judgment.

In this case for intentional torts and negligence, plaintiff contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her attorney fees incurred in proving at trial that defendant slapped her face, after he denied a request for admission that he had done so. Plaintiff challenges the court's ruling that cost-of-proof sanctions are unwarranted because it is unclear whether the jury found Glitch slapped her, and he had a reasonable ground to believe he would prevail on the matter at trial. Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment.

After the court denied motions to suppress evidence and to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance for sale. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on three years' probation including a condition she serve 180 days in custody. On appeal, defendant requested the court to independently review the record. The judgment is affirmed.