CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Richard Allen McVay 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. He responded with a supplemental brief, in which he contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s request for time to speak to defendant in private while in the courtroom because of his hearing impairment; (2) defense counsel may not have investigated his case adequately; (3) the trial judge and the district attorney were prejudiced against defendant based on his prior conviction and lack of money to hire counsel; and (4) the trial court erred in denying his Romero motion. Having reviewed the record and finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Appellant Joshua L. was the subject of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. After a contested hearing, the juvenile court found true that Joshua committed felony assault with a deadly weapon, a violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a), two counts of misdemeanor battery in violation of section 242, and misdemeanor exhibition of a deadly weapon in violation of section 417, subdivision (a)(1).
In addition, the juvenile court found true the allegation that Joshua committed the assault for the benefit of a criminal street gang, as set forth in section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). In this appeal, Joshua challenges only the true finding on the section 186.22 gang enhancement. Specifically, he contends the gang expert was not qualified to testify about the Brown Pride Catela, a Norteño subset; there is insufficient evidence to establish a pattern of criminal activity by the gang as defined in section 186.22, subdivision (e); and there is insufficient evi

Appellant Raul Ayala appeals from his conviction following a court trial on one count of violation of Penal Code section 1320.5, felony failure to appear upon release on bail, along with a finding that appellant committed the felony while he was released on bail within the meaning of section 12022.1, and that he suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (c) through (j) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (e).

Appellant/petitioner Gerardo Gonzales pleaded no contest in 1987 in the Superior Court of Kern County, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), commission of a lewd and lascivious act upon a child. The victim was identified as five-year-old Brooke H., who had apparently been a friend of his daughter. Appellant was sentenced to three years and ordered to register as a sex offender.
As acknowledged by respondent, appellant had originally been arrested and criminally charged as part of “a notorious Kern County investigation into numerous allegations of child molestations against numerous suspects in the 1980s.” Also as acknowledged by respondent, the California State Attorney General’s Office conducted an investigation into how law enforcement agencies handled those cases, and released a report in 1986 (before appellant’s plea in this case) that revealed “there was in fact a well-publicized and flawed investigation inv

Over Thanksgiving weekend in 2013, Edly Albert Atherley hit his wife, Ashley, in the face, giving her two black eyes and a broken nose. Less than an hour later, he killed Ashley by stabbing her in the neck with a butcher knife.
A jury convicted Atherley of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and found that in doing so he personally used a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The court sentenced him to 15 years to life for murder and a consecutive one-year term for using a deadly weapon.

A.D. appeals from a judgment declaring her a juvenile court ward after the court found true an allegation she committed a misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242) against a schoolmate. She contends we must reverse the judgment because the court abused its discretion and violated her federal constitutional rights by declining to grant her a two-week continuance to secure the attendance of a minor witness whose father declined to make her available to complete her testimony notwithstanding a subpoena and a court order compelling her attendance at the adjudication hearing.

Because the record shows respondent has provided petitioner the relief to which he is entitled by way of his petition for habeas corpus, we discharge the order to show cause as improvidently granted and deny the petition.

In October 2015, defendant Douglas Riskas pleaded guilty in case number SCS282499 to one count of grand theft and admitted three prison priors. In the change of plea form, he indicated he stole goods from Nordstrom Rack and stated the value of the property was worth more than $950. At a restitution hearing conducted after sentencing, it was determined that the actual value of the stolen goods was $929.85.

A jury convicted Emanual James Peavy of first degree murder (Pen Code, 187, subd. (a); count 1) and attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 2). As to count 1, it found true allegations Peavy intentionally and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); he was a principal, and in the commission of the offense at least one principal personally used a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury and death to a person (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)); and he committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). As to count 2, it found true allegations Peavy intentionally and personally discharged a semi-automatic handgun (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and he committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The court sentenced Peavy to 39 years plus 50 years to life.

Defendant Allen Dean Strickland pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender within five working days after changing his address. He also admitted he had a prior conviction for burglary that qualified as a strike under the three strikes law. After denying his Romero motion to strike that prior conviction, the trial court sentenced him to two years eight months in prison.

M.C. (father) appeals from the findings and orders made by the juvenile court at the combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing concerning his newborn son, B.C. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that B.C. was currently at risk of serious physical harm at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).) Father further contends the juvenile court erred in finding placement with father was detrimental under section 361.2, and that the court should have applied section 361, subdivision (c).
We find no error and affirm the juvenile court’s findings and orders.

De facto parent Patricia S., paternal grandmother of J.S. (the minor), appeals following the juvenile court’s order granting the minor’s mother, S.O., six months of reunification services. De facto parent raises three contentions on appeal: (1) the juvenile court violated her right to due process by denying her counsel’s access to the juvenile case file; (2) the court violated her right to due process by denying her counsel’s request to object to testimony, cross-examine certain witnesses, and to call the minor’s court-appointed special advocate (CASA) to testify; and (3) the court abused its discretion in ordering reunification services for the minor’s mother. We will affirm.

A jury found defendant Jermaine Lamar Bowden guilty of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12) and had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of eight years eight months in state prison.
On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the one-year prior prison term enhancement should be stricken. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony James Gutierrez has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.