CA Unpub Decisions

In this consolidated appeal, defendant and appellant Thomas Wilson (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a plea of no contest to felony possession of a controlled substance (No. B286357), and from the postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 (No. B287710). In the appeal from the judgment, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. In the appeal from the postjudgment order, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment and order.

Defendant Joe Rodriguez received a sentence of 140 years to life following his conviction of one count of murder, and two counts of attempted murder, for his participation in a gang-related shooting. (People v. Rodriguez (Oct. 20, 2016, B265581) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court denied defendant’s posttrial motion for discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9, finding that the statute did not apply to defendant, because he was not serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Defendant appeals, arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Exercising our discretion to treat his appeal as a petition for writ of mandate, we deny defendant’s request for relief.

Appellant Brian V. (father) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his seven year old son A.V. Father has not lived with A.V. since A.V. was an infant and, in December 2012, father and A.V.’s mother (mother) divorced. In connection with their divorce, the family court granted custody of A.V. to mother and a reasonable right of visitation to father. Father argues the trial court erred in finding father both abandoned A.V. and intended to abandon A.V. within the meaning of Family Code section 7822. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and, therefore, we affirm.

A.B. appeals from the judgment entered after the juvenile court sustained a juvenile petition (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 602) for second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). After the trial court declared the offenses felonies and declared appellant a ward of the court, appellant was committed to the care, custody, and control of the probation department for suitable placement. Appellant contends that the evidence does not support the finding that she aided and abetted the assault and robbery or that a robbery even occurred. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Joaquin Juarez Lopez (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing on the ground that he was ineligible for relief under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126). Defendant contends Proposition 36’s exclusion of an inmate who was armed with a firearm during the commission of a felony does not apply when the underlying felony is unlawful possession of a firearm. We reject that argument and affirm the trial court’s order.

Maria Elena Hausdorfer (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered September 1, 2017, following a court trial in this marital dissolution action. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in setting her permanent spousal support and calculating her equalizing payment. We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, therefore we affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Benny Lee Newton (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing on the ground that he was ineligible for relief under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126). Defendant contends the trial court erred in finding he was armed during commission of the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm because there was no “facilitative nexus” between the arming and that crime. We affirm the trial court’s order.

Fred Estrada (father) appeals from two orders modifying a child custody arrangement. The first order, issued after a hearing on April 10, 2017, clarified how father and the child’s mother, Stephanie Marie Leto (mother), should determine the fifth weekend of the month. The second order, issued after a hearing on May 15, 2017, modified the child custody arrangement as to (1) which parent drove for custodial changes; and (2) the length of the Thanksgiving holiday. On May 15, 2017, the trial court also denied father’s request to vacate all orders going back to 2013. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s orders, therefore we affirm the orders.

Defendant and appellant Ignacio Murillo-Meza (defendant) appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion under Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate his March 2000 conviction for possession for sale of cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 and possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Defendant’s conviction was based on a no contest plea, and he was subsequently deported as a result of that conviction.
Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to vacate the conviction because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant claims the attorney representing him at the time of his plea mistakenly advised him that no immigration consequences would result from his plea, and that had he been properly advised, he would not have pled no contest.
Defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing prejudice, a necessary element of a claim for inef

Stephen Paulsen (defendant) pleaded no contest to possession of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code, § 30605, subd. (a).) He appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request to hold a hearing on his motion to traverse a search warrant pursuant to Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 (Franks). He also challenges the trial court’s prior denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We find no error and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Steven Gilbert Patten (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction of assault, animal cruelty, resisting an executive officer, and vandalism. He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his Wheeler/Batson objection to the prosecutor’s peremptory juror challenges, as well as in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on self-defense in relation to the animal cruelty charge, and in giving an erroneous flight instruction (CALCRIM No. 372). Defendant also requests remand for resentencing under the recent amendment to the firearm enhancement statutes (Sen. Bill No. 620), and correction of a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. We direct the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment which correctly reflects the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence; however, finding remand for resentencing unnecessary and no merit to defendant’s remaining contentions, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant City of Pasadena (City) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Larry D. Walker (Walker) following a trial in which the jury found the City liable under Government Code section 835 for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property. The City contends there was no evidence that it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition (a sidewalk uplifted by tree roots) a sufficient time prior to Walker’s injury. The City further contends testimony by Walker’s expert witness on the issue of notice should not have been admitted.
Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that the City had constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to Walker’s injury, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged expert testimony. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Sok Hoeut Phan (appellant) appeals from a judgment following a court trial. The trial court invalidated certain real property transfers and awarded Khmer Buddhist Association, Inc. (KBA) $1,052,337, including treble damages for appellant’s repeated and open violations of Penal Code section 496. We find no error and therefore affirm the judgment.

Wayne Lefon Briggs appeals the judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of aggravated kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1)) and nine counts of second degree robbery (§ 211) arising from two bank robberies, one in December 2014 of a Wells Fargo and a second in January 2015 of a Citibank. The jury also found true that Briggs personally used a firearm in the commission of the kidnapping and two of the robberies (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and that a principal was armed in the commission of the kidnapping and all the robberies (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)).