CA Unpub Decisions

Wilfredo Cruz appeals from his conviction and sentence for the murder of Norman Earl Edwards. Cruz contends the prosecutor committed misconduct in her closing argument by misstating the law defining deliberation and premeditation and by arguing facts she had not proved. Cruz also contends his trial lawyer was constitutionally ineffective in failing to object to this misconduct. In a supplemental brief, Cruz asks us to remand his case to the trial court for the court to consider whether to strike the firearm enhancement under Senate Bill 620, which took effect on January 1, 2018.
We find no error in the prosecutor’s closing argument, and therefore affirm Cruz’s conviction. We remand the case to the trial court for the court to exercise its discretion to strike or to decline to strike the punishment imposed for Cruz’s intentional discharge of a firearm causing Edwards’s death.

Defendant and appellant Robert Cavalier (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. He contends that the trial court erred in finding facts that were not encompassed by the verdict in his underlying conviction, that substantial evidence did not support the court’s finding that he was armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense, that the trial court erred in applying the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof rather than the reasonable doubt standard, that he was entitled to a jury on the issue of whether he was armed with a deadly weapon, that his life sentence is cruel and unusual, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Although we conclude that the trial court should have applied a reasonable doubt standard of proof, we find the error harmless. As there is no merit to defendant’s remaining contentions, we affirm the ju

Leo Lloyd Adams appeals from a judgment entered after his jury conviction of two counts of first degree murder and three counts of attempted murder, as an aider and abettor, with gang and firearm enhancements. He contends the trial court erred in not instructing the jury about voluntary manslaughter, based on imperfect defense of another. He also contends defense counsel was ineffective for not advising him of his right to testify. We disagree and affirm.

Filed 4/5/18 P. v. Prince CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
IVIN CAPONE PRINCE,
Defendant and Appellant.

A147859

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. H58138A)


When the jury entered the courtroom on the last morning of defendant Ivin Capone Prince’s trial for first degree residential burglary, defendant was in waist chains. The sole issue on appeal is whether defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the use of the chains. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HIST

A jury found defendant Israel Warren Sloan guilty of second degree burglary, and found true enhancement allegations that he had been armed with, and had personally used, a firearm during the commission of the robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for two years on the robbery, plus 10 years for his personal use of the firearm. Defendant appealed, contending that the sentence violated the guarantees of the federal and state Constitutions against cruel and/or unusual punishment.
During the pendency of this appeal, an amendment to Penal Code section 12022.53 vested trial courts with the power to strike or dismiss enhancements for the personal use of a firearm. Defendant and the Attorney General filed supplemental briefs, both agreeing that this enactment justifies a remand to the trial court to give it the opportunity to exercise this new discretion.

Michael Eugene Wyatt appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder. He contends (1) there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation for first degree murder; (2) the court erroneously admitted evidence of his prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter; (3) the court should have instructed the jury not to use the evidence of the prior homicide unless it made a preliminary finding that the homicide was committed with malice; (4) the court should have instructed the jury on self-defense and imperfect self-defense; (5) the prosecutor committed misconduct by saying that manslaughter was “murder with an excuse;” and (6) cumulative error. We will affirm the judgment.

Kimberly S. (mother), seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) terminating reunification services as to her now 15-year-old son, Evan, and six-year-old daughter, Emily, and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding she was provided reasonable reunification services and there was not a substantial probability the children could be returned to her custody. She asks this court to vacate the section 366.26 hearing and direct the juvenile court to continue reunification services and grant her unsupervised visitation. We deny the petition.

N.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to the minor, D.M. (Welf. & Ins. Code, § 366.26). Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it terminated her parental rights without compliance to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We will reverse and remand for limited ICWA proceedings.

Appointed counsel for defendant Todd Lance Tellyer asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

In October 2014, defendant and appellant Leon Dowd pled no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) and admitted he had suffered one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was placed on formal probation for a period of 36 months on various terms and conditions of probation.
Defendant subsequently violated probation, and in April 2015, admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The trial court reinstated defendant on probation in a drug court program with modified terms.

James D. Coon is currently serving a jail sentence that includes an enhancement for a prior conviction. He seeks to vacate the enhancement based on a recent statutory amendment that removed the offense of which Coon had been convicted from the list of offenses that require imposition of the enhancement. The People concede Coon is entitled to this relief. We therefore grant the relief and direct the superior court to resentence Coon.

Plaintiffs James Carver and Markel Insurance Company (Markel) prevailed at trial on their negligence action against defendants Controlled Environment HVAC, Inc. (Controlled) and its president Ors Gyene. Thereafter they filed a motion to recover costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 based on defendants' failure to admit requests for admissions regarding liability and damages. Plaintiffs appeal the denial of that motion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in a lawsuit that the plaintiffs filed as a wage and hour class action. Plaintiffs Shannon Meehan, Elsa Espinoza, and Ken Willits (Plaintiffs) filed the underlying action on behalf of themselves and two classes of unnamed plaintiffs against their employer (or, depending on the individual plaintiff, former employer), Inland Counties Regional Center, Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiffs sought remedies for Defendant's alleged violations of state "laws, rules, regulations and orders" related to overtime compensation.

A jury convicted Benito Guadagni of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a); count 1), assault with a semi-automatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count 2), robbery
(§ 211; count 3), and evading arrest with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 4). As to counts 1, 2 and 3, the jury found true allegations that Guadagni personally used a firearm within the meaning of sections 12022.5, subdivision (a) and 12022.53, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced him to the midterm of five years on count 1 with a consecutive 10-year enhancement for the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) gun use allegation, and a consecutive eight-month term on count 4, for a total determinate term of 15 years eight months. The court imposed and stayed under section 654 the sentences and enhancements on counts 2 and 3.