CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant was convicted of first degree burglary, vandalism and disturbing the peace. “Three Strike” priors were found to be true and appellant was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. On appeal, Appellant contends (1) the trial court erred by failure to instruct the jury sua sponte with CALJIC No. 17.01 [the unanimity instruction]; (2) there was no substantial evidence that appellant intended to commit a felony when he entered the residence; (3) evidence of appellant’s other misconduct should not have been admitted; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike “priors.” Court affirms the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant of felony reckless driving while evading a peace officer and found true allegations appellant had suffered a “strike” and had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction. The court imposed a prison term of five years, consisting of the two-year midterm on the substantive offense, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law, and one year on the prior prison term enhancement.
On appeal, appellant argues that the court, in violation of appellant’s rights under the United States Constitution, improperly (1) limited cross-examination of a prosecution witness, and (2) instructed the jury, in essence, that appellant committed the instant offense. Court affirms.

A jury convicted appellant of one count of assault with a deadly weapon, a knife, and acquitted him of two additional assaults and brandishing a firearm replica. The court denied probation and imposed a mitigated prison sentence of two years. Defendant appeals contending the court erred in denying probation. Court disagrees and affirms.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance for purposes of sale. The court imposed a prison term of two years and ordered appellant to pay, inter alia, attorney fees in the amount of $200. On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in (1) denying his suppression motion and (2) ordering appellant to pay attorney fees. Court reversed and remanded with direction to vacate appellant’s plea and grant the motion to suppress.

The court adjudged appellant, a ward of the court after it sustained allegations in a petition charging Defendant with possession of false instruments, being an unlicensed driver, and driving without proof of insurance. The court placed Defendant on probation. On appeal, defendant contends: 1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the court’s true finding on the possession of the false instruments offense; and 2) the court erred in ordering him to pay all or part of the costs of drug testing as a condition of probation. Court found that the juvinile court did not impose the condition complained of and affirms the judgment.

A Madera County jury found Appellant guilty of two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an upper three-year prison term for the first count plus a consecutive eight-month subordinate term (one-third of the middle term) for the second count. On appeal, Appellant contends the trial court’s imposition of the upper term violated her federal constitutional right for a jury to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts warranting an upper-term sentence. Appellant also contends her counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the upper term sentence. Judgment Affirmed.

The juvenile court found 15-year-old appellant committed several criminal offenses and placed him on an electronic monitoring program. Appellant contends that the juvenile court’s findings that he committed an assault with a deadly weapon is unsupported by substantial evidence and must be reversed. Court disagrees and affirms the disposition.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court denying him reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his daughter. Court denies the petition.

Defendant pled no contest to committing second degree commercial burglary. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on three years of formal probation. The court summarily revoked defendant’s probation, declared a doubt as to his competency, and suspended criminal proceedings. Following a hearing, defendant was found competent and criminal proceedings resumed. As the result of a contested hearing, defendant was found in violation of his probation. Defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison. Court examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. The judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision.

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine, a misdemeanor and waived Proposition 36 drug treatment. In a second case, Defendant entered a no contest plea to receiving stolen property, as a misdemeanor, and a drug paraphernalia charge was dismissed. The court granted probation in each case conditioned in part on defendant serving 90 days in jail.
Defendant violated probation by failing to report to jail to serve the 90 days. The court reinstated probation.
Defendant appeals in all of the foregoing cases. Her request for a certificate of probable cause in both cases were denied.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, the court found no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Defendant.

Defendant appeals in timely manner from the order denying his motion to vacate a judgment against him, which Plaintiff obtained on an ex parte application purportedly pursuant to the terms of a settlement between the parties. Defendant contends these extrinsic events deprived him of the opportunity to appear and oppose the entry of judgment. Court reverse with directions.

Defendant pled guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated; admitted having suffered three prior convictions of driving under the influence, and waived his presentence custody credits. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 15 years to life and was ordered to pay a $3,000 restitution fine, a $3,000 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, and a $20 court security fee. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, the court found no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Defendant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the trial court in favor of his neighbors, that requires Plaintiff to remove additions to the roof of his home. This is Plaintiff's second appeal in this matter. Appellant previously appealed from a judgment entered in favor of the Petty’s in which the trial court concluded that in remodeling his house, plaintiff violated an implied right against material view obstructions contained in a Declaration of Restrictions (CC&R's) that was created for and governed the nine-lot subdivision in which the appellants residences are located (Dillon Heights). In that appeal, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the trial court erred in interpreting the CC&R's to contain an implied right against material view obstructions. Because the trial court had not determined whether the Hill remodel violated express provisions of the CC&R's, as the Petty’s had claimed, court remanded the matter to the court for further proceedings. In this appeal, judgment affirmed.