CA Unpub Decisions

James C. Walters, Jr., raises two issues pertaining to fines, fees and penalty assessments in three cases. In case SCN358801, a jury found Walters guilty of taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 1), buying or receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, count 2) and possessing a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351, count 3). The trial court sentenced Walters to a total prison term of four years eight months. The court imposed a laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) and a criminal drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)), and included a penalty assessment on both. Walters contends the trial court improperly imposed penalty assessments on the criminal laboratory analysis fee and a drug program fee. We reject this contention.

A consolidated amended information charged defendant Ignacio Canela with premediated attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) & 664, subd. (e), count 1); felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2); felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3); felony evasion (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 4); carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a), count 5); transportation of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count 6); possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (id., § 11378, count 7); possession of a controlled substance (hydrocodone) (id., § 11377, subd. (a), count 8); possession of a controlled substance (diazepam) (id., § 11377, subd. (a), count 9); possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (id., § 11378, count 10); possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) (id., § 11350, subd. (a), count 11); poss

Appointed counsel for defendant Tywain Lamel Smith asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review reveals that several mandatory fines were not imposed. We will modify the judgment to impose those fines and otherwise affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Appointed counsel for defendant Dennis Lee Stephens filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We have, however, found errors in the abstract of judgment that require correction. We order the abstract corrected and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Jeffrey Brian McKinney contends the double jeopardy clause of the United States and California Constitutions barred retrial of a prior strike conviction allegation, which doubled his sentence for his conviction of felony receipt of stolen property. Defendant further contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his lawyer failed to move to dismiss the strike allegation. We will affirm.

Following a jury trial, defendant Phillip Allen Davis was convicted of assault by means of force likely to produce a great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) The trial court sustained two strike (§ 1170.12) and two prior prison term allegations and sentenced defendant to an eight-year state prison term.
On appeal, defendant contends one of the prison priors is unauthorized because the underlying felony had been reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18 before the trial court sustained the enhancement allegation. He additionally claims trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the enhancement on this ground. We shall strike the prison prior and affirm the judgment as modified.

A jury found defendants Francisco Castillo, Eduardo Aguayo, and Daniel Espinosa guilty of robbery for the benefit of the Sureño criminal street gang, and found that Castillo personally used a firearm pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The jury also found Espinosa guilty of evading a peace officer and willful obstruction. In a bifurcated trial, the court found Espinosa had a prior strike conviction, three prior serious felony convictions, and had served multiple prior prison terms. In this consolidated appeal, all three defendants challenge the jury’s true finding of their gang enhancement on two grounds--first, the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement; and second, the court erroneously admitted case-specific hearsay evidence concerning defendants’ gang membership in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665. Castillo and Espinosa also contend the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on voluntar

Defendant and appellant Manuel Penate appeals from his conviction, following entry of a plea of no contest to one count of sodomy by use of force on a victim under the age of 14, and two counts of lewd act upon a child. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for nine years eight months. We affirm.
On February 2, 2017, defendant was charged by information with eight felony counts involving sexual offenses against three separate minor victims: sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a); victim J.S.; count 1), two counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); victim J.S.; counts 2 and 3), lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a); victim J.S.; count 4), lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (c)(1); victim K.C.; count 5), lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a); victim B.S.; count 6), and two counts of sodomy by force on a victim under the age of 14 (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(B); vic

In this appeal, Ruth C., a nonminor former dependent who is under age 21, asks us to reverse the trial court’s order terminating jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings to permit her to reenter foster care. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) acknowledges it erred by asking the juvenile court to find Ruth C. was not eligible to voluntarily reenter dependency jurisdiction. We agree there was error, reverse and remand.

On February 18, 2016, appellant Dawit W. Dedela was released on parole supervision for a period of three years. In addition to the standard provisions prohibiting him from engaging in any conduct prohibited by law and requiring that he inform his parole agent if he was arrested for any crime, the parole conditions forbade appellant from using or possessing drugs and alcohol or possessing drug paraphernalia. On April 7, 2017, the Division of Adult Parole Operations filed a petition for revocation, alleging appellant violated the terms and conditions of parole by engaging in the crime of forgery, and by possessing paraphernalia and a controlled substance.

Stanley Shelley appeals from the March 7, 2017 judgment of misdemeanor assault and imposition of a sentence of 180 days consecutive to the felony term he is currently serving in prison. Following our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we conclude no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.

Stanley Shelley appeals from the March 7, 2017 judgment of misdemeanor assault and imposition of a sentence of 180 days consecutive to the felony term he is currently serving in prison. Following our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we conclude no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant, Rene Alejandro Guevara, of first degree murder (count 1), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count 3) and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count 4). (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 245, subd. (b), 29800, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court dismissed count 2. The jury found true as to counts 1 and 3 alleged gang and firearm enhancements. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(c), 12022.5, subds. (a) & (d), 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 113 years to life in state prison.
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the gang enhancements. We find substantial evidence supported those enhancements.

Defendant Tyrran D. Burrell appeals from the superior court’s denial of his motion to modify his sentence to strike four enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), on the ground that the convictions underlying those enhancements have been reclassified under Proposition 47 as misdemeanors and no longer support the enhancements. We affirm.