CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a two-year state prison term after the trial court found that he possessed a burglary tool with the intent to feloniously break or enter a building or vehicle and falsely identified himself to a police officer. On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation for either alleged violation. Court disagreed, and affirmed the judgment.

Appellants appeal the juvenile court order denying them de facto parent status in the dependency proceedings of their two nieces and nephew. The trial court denied the request because the aunt and uncle had not assumed the role of the children’s parents on a day-to-day basis for a substantial period of time. Court affirmed.

Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of nine years and four months following his entry of a guilty plea to charges of robbery, two counts of assault with a firearm, participation in a criminal street gang, taking a vehicle, and using the vehicle to elude the police. Defendant also admitted that he committed one of the assaults for the benefit of a criminal street gang. His counsel raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. Upon independent review of the record, court concluded that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant admitted to violating his probation by using methamphetamine. The trial court responded by revoking his probation and sentencing defendant to 16 months in state prison. Defendant’s counsel, having examined the record and finding no issues to raise on appeal, asked the court to review the record independently to determine whether arguable issues exist. Finding no arguable issues, court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. The jury found defendant guilty of the willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder of two peace officers, during which defendant personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury to Deputy Patterson; assault with a semiautomatic weapon on the two peace officers, during which defendant personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury to Deputy Patterson; possession of an assault weapon; possession of a firearm by a felon; carrying a loaded firearm while an active gang member; and possession of a weapon by a person in custody.
On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s failure to instruct on attempted voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense and on the definition of a criminal street gang. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he was a member of a criminal street gang. Defendant further claims error in the trial court’s denial of his motion for disclosure of juror information and imposition of the upper term sentence on count 5. Court found no grounds for reversal and affirmed the judgment.

Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of lewd conduct with a child under 14 years of age. Appellant argues that the judgment must be reversed because: (1) the trial court improperly excluded three Spanish-speaking prospective jurors for cause; (2) the court admitted evidence of a statement made by appellant to police that was not preceded by a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights under Miranda v. Arizona; (3) evidence of the victim's description of the offense to his mother under the fresh complaint doctrine violated the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington (2004); (4) the court improperly restricted defense counsel's cross-examination of a witness who had transcribed and translated appellant's statement to police from Spanish to English; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Appellant alternatively argues that the court abused its discretion when it imposed the upper term on the lewd conduct count and improperly relied on aggravating factors that were neither admitted by him nor found true by the jury. Finally, appellant notes that the abstract of judgment should be modified to reflect that conduct credits were awarded under section 2933.1, rather than section 4019. Court agreed with the final contention, but otherwise affirmed.

Defendant appeals from an order revoking and terminating her probation for failure to comply with the condition of probation that she obey all laws. Defendant contends that the prosecution presented no competent evidence that she stole anything from Costco, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant had violated her probation. Court disagreed and affirmed the order.

Defendant appeals the judgment following his conviction for assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury and misdemeanor battery (two counts). Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the assault conviction, that section 245, subdivision (a)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to this case, and that the trial court violated his right to counsel by limiting closing argument. Defendant also makes a claim under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree murder, with a further finding that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing the death during the commission of the offense. Defendant contends that the ensuing sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Court affirmed.

Plaintiff in pro. per. filed a complaint for damages for medical malpractice and negligence and life changing injuries. Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendants. Court reversed.

Appellant appeals from the judgment entered against them on Larry Romano’s complaint for breach of contract and negligence. Appellant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence of damages. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of shooting at an occupied vehicle, assault with a firearm, and making a criminal threat. The jury found that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of all three offenses. Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because (1) the trial court’s admission into evidence of gang expert testimony denied defendant his due process right to a fair trial and proper notice; (2) the prosecutor improperly argued that defendant’s mother and sister were logical defense witnesses who had not been called to testify without any showing of availability; (3) the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting testimony by one of the victims that he was attacked and told not to testify; (4) the trial court improperly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial because there was prejudicial testimony suggesting that defendant was involved in another, more serious, crime; and (5) the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. Court concluded that there was no prejudicial error and therefore affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a jury 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 Perez 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. Judgment Affirmed.