CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from a jury conviction finding him guilty of vandalism causing over $400 in damages. 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 jury conviction finding 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. 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 jury conviction finding him guilty of second degree burglary. 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. Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that Penal Code section 654 precluded the imposition of consecutive sentences on the offenses. 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. Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. Court reviewed the record independently and are satisfied that counsel has performed her duty and no issues of arguable merit exist. 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 “from the final judgment of conviction pursuant to Penal Code 1538.5.” Court 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 “from the final judgment of conviction pursuant to Penal Code 1538.5.” 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. The five remaining counts, which also alleged the commission of various sex crimes, were dismissed. On appeal, Defendant request the court independently review the record. No arguable issues existed. 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 has filed a brief in which no issues were raised. Court sent notice to defendant that he could personally submit any contentions or arguments to this court. Defendant asserted 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 child appeals 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.

Appellant petitions this court for an extraordinary writ challenging the juvenile court’s order setting a permanent plan hearing as to her two daughters. Court denied her petition.

Father petitions for extraordinary writ review of orders setting a permanency planning hearing and terminating reunification services. Court denied the writ, but also instruct the juvenile court to ensure that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has complied fully with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in title 25 of the United States Code, section 1912, subdivision (a) before proceeding with the scheduled permanency planning hearing.