CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to transport marijuana, failing to file a tax return, filing a false tax return and six counts of money laundering. Defendant was sentenced to five years in prison, to run concurrently with his federal sentence for a related federal crime. Defendant did not seek and was not given a certificate of probable cause. Defendant appeals, claiming his motions to recuse the prosecutor and his office and to dismiss were erroneously denied. Court do not reach the merits of his arguments, as his waiver of his right to appeal his preplea motions bars the court's review of the former and his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause bars the court's review of the latter. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the trial court's order denying her special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, asserting that the trial court erred when it determined that the gravamen of the complaint did not arise from her report of suspected child abuse to Riverside County authorities. Defendant also asserts that the plaintiffs cannot establish a probability of success on their claims and therefore requests that the court order the trial court to grant her anti-SLAPP motion. Court affirms.

Defendant suffered a kidney injury and defendant and minor's mother, failed to seek prompt medical attention for her. A jury convicted defendant of violating section 273a, subdivision (a), and found true the allegation that "[t]he crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness." The trial judge declared a mistrial on one count of violating section 273d, subdivision (a), and the enhancement alleged under 12022.7, subdivision (d) and dismissed those charges. After due consideration, court rejected defendant's contentions of error and affirmed the judgment.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of multiple offenses involving three of his stepchildren. The convictions consisted of one count of torture, two counts of felony child endangerment, one count of child endangerment, four counts of child abuse, 10 counts of forcible rape, and 10 counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. The jury also found that defendant inflicted great bodily injury in count VIII. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison on the torture conviction, plus 73 years 8 months on the other counts. Defendant appeals. Court found each contentions without merit. Judgment Affirmed.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to stay his consecutive sentences for several counts under Penal Code section 654 because the convictions arose from an indivisible course of conduct during which he had a single intent. Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

After their motion to suppress evidence was denied, defendants and his wife each pled guilty to one count of growing marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358. They now appeal, contending the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the officers failed to comply with the knock-notice requirements of Penal Code section 1531. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of first degree murder. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to correct errors in the probation report. Court found no error. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant plead guilty to one count of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14, in exchange for the dismissal of the more serious remaining count. Defendant was placed on three years of formal probation on various terms and conditions, including serving 365 days in county jail. The same year Legislature enacted section 1465.8, which provided that a $20 court security fee shall be assessed against all convictions. Defendant's probation was revoked based on defendant's failure to inform his probation officer of his arrest in Los Angeles County for rape. Following defendant's admission to the probation violation, the trial court reinstated defendant's probation with the condition that he serve an additional 90 days in local custody. Defendant's probation was again revoked based upon defendant's failure to complete his 90 days in custody and upon his arrest in Los Angeles County for assault with a deadly weapon. Following a probation violation hearing the trial court found that defendant had violated the "violate no law" term of his probation. The court then revoked defendant's probation, sentenced him to six years in prison, and imposed the $20 court security fee pursuant to section 1465.8. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the section 1465.8 court security fee must be stricken because it violates retroactivity principles. Court rejected this contention and affirmed the judgment.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, one count of driving while under the influence causing injury, and one count of driving with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol causing injury. As to one of the manslaughter counts, defendant also admitted a multiple victim enhancement allegation. In exchange, the parties agreed the remaining charge of possession of a controlled substance would be dismissed, and defendant would be sentenced to a maximum term of 14 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in imposing the sentence of 14 years 4 months when the maximum term specified in the plea agreement was 14 years; and (2) defendant was deprived of his federal and state constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process when the trial court imposed the upper term on count 1. Court agreed with the parties that the matter should be remanded to allow the trial court to sentence defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Court rejected defendant's remaining contention.

Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of ingredients to make a destructive device, possession of ammunition by a felon, and possession of methamphetamine. In addition, the jury found true that defendant had previously suffered two prior strike convictions, and four prior prison terms. Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 53 years to life in state prison pursuant to the three strikes law. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a fingerprint card generated three months before trial in determining whether defendant was the person who had the alleged prior strike convictions, because the People had failed to provide adequate evidence of chain of custody. Court rejected this contention and affirmed the judgment.

Petitioner --the injured worker--seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that awarded respondents a credit for "overpayment" of sums designated for 24 hour a day attendant care. Court agreeed with petitioner that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in making the award because the issue had been finally determined earlier in these proceedings.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine and one count of possession of heroin. Defendant also admitted that he had suffered one prior strike conviction and two prior prison terms. In return, the remaining enhancement allegations were dismissed, and he was promised a sentence of 9 years 4 months. After the court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his guilty plea, which included a promise he could raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, was illusory, and therefore he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. Court rejected this contention and affirmed the judgment.

A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder. In addition, the jury found true that defendant had used a handgun in the commission of the murder. Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 50 years to life in state prison. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct. Court found no prejudice and affirmed the judgment.

In 2001, defendant pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamin, possessing a controlled substance, maintaining a place where controlled substances are sold and admitted having suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prison term. As part of his plea bargain, defendant waived his right to appeal. In the change of plea form, his initials appear next to the following provision, which was amended by interlineation, "I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, deportation, exclusion from admission to the Unites States, or denial of naturalization will result from a conviction of the offense(s) to which I plead guilty . . . ."? The record before the court did not state what sentence, if any, defendant received for these crimes, although it appeared from the statements in his motion, discussed below, that he was sentenced to prison. In 2005, defendant personally submitted an unsworn "Motion for Writ of Error (Coram Nobis) and Motion to Vacate Conviction"? in which he asked the trial court to vacate his convictions and "withdraw [his] guilty plea[s]" on the grounds that his trial attorney and the trial court that accepted his pleas had not advised him of the immigration consequences of them. Defendant alleged that while released pending sentencing, he entered an agreement with the San Bernardino Police Department to act as an informant for the department, in exchange for which he would have "his plea reversed and . . . will get time served." He subsequently was found in possession of methamphetamine, the prosecution of which, defendant alleged, was dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to prison, presumably for the crimes to which he pled. The motion is not file stamped. Counsel has filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Judgment affirmed.