CA Unpub Decisions

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant entered guilty pleas to seven felony counts of vandalism in exchange for dismissal of 16 other counts of vandalism and a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. Defendant appealed, citing unspecified sentencing error. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record to ascertain whether an arguable issue exists. Court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and a sentencing lid of 10 years Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Court found no arguable issues. Judgment Affirmed.

In this second appeal, Mother contends: (1) the court erroneously denied her section 388 petition seeking to have A.G. placed with paternal relatives by considering A.G.'s current circumstances rather than circumstances as they existed at the original section 388 hearing; (2) even if the court could consider current circumstances, it abused its discretion by denying Suzanne's request to have A.G. placed with paternal relatives; and (3) the evidence supported a finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception applied to preclude terminating Suzanne's parental rights. Marvin also appeals, joining in Suzanne's first two arguments and specifically asserting the court erred by failing to consider all the factors set forth in section 361.3 for relative placement. The court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant appealed and counsel filed a brief setting forth the evidence, presenting no arguments, and asking for review by the court. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant appeals the orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, appellant asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. Appeal dismissed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment placing him on felony probation after a jury convicted him of possessing methamphetamine for sale and returned a true finding that the substance possessed was in a crystalline form. Court examined the record and considered the points raised in appellant's letter brief. Court is satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered following his guilty plea to petty theft with a prior and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction and served a prior prison term. Pursuant to his negotiated plea, five additional priors and a misdemeanor count of being under the influence of a controlled substance were dismissed. Pursuant to the plea, defendant was sentenced to prison for a total of four years, consisting of the upper term of three years, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement. Appellant requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant lost his life, his jewelry, and his diamond studded gold teeth in the apparently lucrative, yet lawless and dangerous, business of drug dealing. Following a joint trial, a jury convicted defendants of robbery, murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, various enhancements, and a special circumstance. Both defendants challenged the trial court’s ruling that they failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination when the prosecutor exercised his second peremptory challenge to excuse an African-American potential juror. Defendant contends that the court erroneously denied his request for new counsel without interrogating his lawyer, and defendant Courtney insists the joint trial deprived him of a fair trial. Court accepted the Attorney General’s invitation, at defendants’ urging, to strike the parole revocation fines, but in all other respects, court affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree felony murder, with a special circumstance that the murder was committed during an attempted robbery.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred (1) in instructing with CALJIC No. 2.51 on motive; (2) in instructing with CALJIC No. 2.61 that a defendant may simply rely on the prosecution’s evidence (after defendant had testified); (3) in imposing a parole revocation restitution fine when defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole; and (4) in calculating defendant’s presentence custody credit. Defendant further contends that the first two alleged errors were cumulatively prejudicial. Court find no prejudicial error regarding the first two contentions, and therefore found no cumulative error. Court agreed with the second two contentions, and modified the judgment accordingly. As modified, court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff, commenced this personal injury action 11 and one-half years ago. When defendant denied coverage for the plaintiff’s loss and refused to defend, he entered into an agreement with defendant not to execute any judgment against defendant in exchange for an assignment of defendant’s rights against the insurance company. Appellant obtained a default judgment against defendant, but her subsequent action against the insurance company ended in defeat when that court declared the default judgment void for failure to serve defendant with a statement of damages, and refused to acknowledge a subsequently entered judgment declaring defendant had impliedly waived service of a statement of damages. Court, however, reversed the order of dismissal because the court concluded that a five year period in which to bring the action to trial does not run during the time a default judgment is entered.

A jury convicted defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, and driving with a suspended or revoked license. Defendant admitted to three prior convictions of driving under the influence of alcohol. The court sentenced defendant to three years for count one and stayed the sentence for count two. The trial court imposed a $1,758.90 “penal fine,” a $50 Alcohol Abuse Education and Prevention penalty, a $200 restitution fund fine.
On appeal, defendant contends: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings regarding his Arizona driving under the influence convictions; 2) the abstract overstated the restitution and parole revocation fines; 3) the trial court failed to include a breakdown of the fines, fees and penalties in the abstract; 4) the driving under the influence fine should be stricken; and 5) there was insufficient evidence of defendant’s ability to pay the alcohol abuse penalty. Court concluded that since defendant admitted the Arizona prior convictions, defendant is barred from challenging the trial court’s findings on the Arizona prior convictions on appeal. Court remanded for resentencing on the fines and fees, and affirmed the rest of the judgment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to oral copulation of a child under the age of 14. The trial court sentenced Defendant to the middle term of six years. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the middle term rather than the low term. Court affirmed.

Following an altercation with an acquaintance, in which Defendant punched the victim several times in the face, Defendant was charged with assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury. As to both offenses, it was alleged Defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim, and it was also alleged defendant had been convicted of two prior strike offenses and had served a prior prison term.
In a negotiated plea bargain, Defendant agreed to plead no contest to the battery charge, and to admit one prior strike conviction, and one prior prison term, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charge and the great bodily injury enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a). After Defendant’s plea was entered, the court granted the district attorney’s motion to dismiss the assault charge, the great bodily injury enhancement, and the second strike allegation.
On appeal, Defendant asks the court to order the abstract corrected to reflect sentence components actually imposed by the trial court; i.e., to show that his mid-term sentence was doubled by virtue of Defendant’s prior strike conviction, and to eliminate the reference to a great bodily injury enhancement. The Attorney General concedes the error. Court agreed that the abstract of judgment must be corrected.

The mother of minor appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. Appellant makes several claims of alleged prejudicial error in the dependency proceedings. For the reasons that follow, court affirmed.