CA Unpub Decisions

Court reviewed a portion of this case for a second time. After a joint trial before two juries, one jury convicted defendant of attempted murder (count 1), two counts of second-degree robbery (counts 2 and 3), violent false imprisonment as a lesser crime of kidnapping for robbery (count 4), and possessing a firearm as a felon (count 6). The jury also found that a principal was armed with a firearm in counts 1-4, and that defendant personally used a firearm in counts 2-4. The second jury acquitted defendant of attempted murder (count 1) but convicted him of the same two second-degree robberies and the same violent false imprisonment (counts 2-4) and possessing a firearm as a felon (count 7). The second jury also found that a principal was armed with, and Boglin personally used, a firearm in counts 2-4, and that Boglin inflicted great bodily injury in count 2. Defendant was sentenced to 35 years, 4 months in prison; Boglin was sentenced to 108 years-to-life in prison. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment, court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that defendant waived this issue by not raising it in the trial court. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant appeals from an order denying her petition to vacate an earlier order terminating reunification services. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals from the disposition of a juvenile delinquency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging that he possessed cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that he possessed cocaine, because the drugs were discovered in a room he shared with his cousin. Therefore, appellant argues that respondent did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the drug, including the requirement that he knew of its presence in the room.
Additionally, appellant argues that the court erred in calculating his precommitment custody credits, granting him credit for 122 days rather than the 127 days to which he was entitled. Appellant also contends that the court failed to give him credit for time served under his previously sustained petitions, and that the case should be remanded for determination of such credits. Respondent concedes both points relating to the determination of custody credits.
Court affirm the court's finding but remand with instructions to increase appellant's precommitment custody credits to 127 days, and to calculate the appropriate credits to be awarded for time served under previous petitions.

Court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on appellant’s behalf. Court examined the record and found no arguable issue. Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and court received no communication from appellant. The judgment is affirmed.

This case arises from a violent street fight between rival gang members. Defendant's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant identifying one potentially arguable issue: “Did the court abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for probation and sentencing him to a twenty-one year state prison term?” The judgment is affirmed.

This case arises from a violent street fight between rival gang members. Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon and admitted great bodily injury and gang-related enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. On appeal and in the related petition for writ of habeas corpus, defendant contends the trial court improperly relied on defendant’s placement in a certain pretrial grouping to impose a lengthy prison sentence. Court affirmed the judgment and denied the habeas petition.

This case arises from a violent street fight between rival gang members. Defendant pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon and admitted great bodily injury and gang-related enhancements. A year earlier, defendant entered pleas to separate charges of assault with a deadly weapon, with a gang enhancement, and possession of brass knuckles. Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 17 years 8 months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues a new sentencing hearing is required because the trial court denied probation based on an erroneous belief that he was presumptively ineligible. Court agreed and remanded the case for resentencing.

This case arises from a violent street fight between rival gang members.
Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief identifying no potentially arguable issues. Court reviewed the entire record, including sealed grand jury transcripts available only to the court, and court agreed with counsel’s assessment that no issue warrants further briefing. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant appeals from the denial of its anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint of respondents. Appellant contends that respondents failed to establish a probability of prevailing on their claims, and that the wrongdoing alleged by respondents as the basis for their complaint was subject to the litigation privilege set forth in Civil Code section 47. Respondents urge that the trial court correctly found that they had established a probability of prevailing on the merits of their claims, but further contend that the appeal should be dismissed as moot. They also argue that if the trial court’s order is reversed they should not be liable for attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings regarding attorney fees consistent with this opinion.

This case, along with four others court address in separate opinions, arises from a violent street fight between rival gang members. Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, admitted great bodily injury, and gang-related enhancements. While some of his codefendants received long sentences, approaching or exceeding 20 years in length, defendant was sentenced to only eight years imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues his sentence on the assault charge should have been stayed pursuant to section 654, and he challenges the imposition of a $20 court security fee. Court amended the abstract of judgment to correct typographical errors, but in all other respects court affirmed.

This appeal arises out of extensive litigation between the parties as a result of appellant brief tenancy at respondent mobilehome park. Appellant appeals following summary judgment entered in favor of respondent on all of the causes of action alleged in his third amended complaint (TAC). On appeal, appellant claims his cause of action for retaliatory eviction should have survived summary judgment. Appellant also challenges the trial court’s denial of his request for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Court affirmed.

Mother appeals from the orders (1) denying her petition under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and (2) terminating her parental rights following a hearing under section 366.26. Court affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of felony assault and sentenced under the Three Strikes law to a term of 25 years to life in prison. Defendant appealed, and court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. Among several other claims raised on appeal, defendant relied on Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 to argue that he was erroneously denied a jury trial on the question of whether a prior conviction was based on serious felony conduct. Court rejected this challenge based on binding Supreme Court authority. Appeal dismissed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on her plea. Her counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. After review of the record, court found no error and affirmed.