CA Unpub Decisions

Dahood Bey appeals from his conviction of multiple counts arising from his operation, along with others, of a security firm and a janitorial service that submitted false paperwork to obtain public contracts. He raises only one issue on appeal, namely, a clerical error in the abstract of judgment with respect to his custody credits. The Attorney General acknowledges error and concedes the error should be corrected. We therefore order the abstract of judgment modified to reflect the correct number of days of custody credit and otherwise affirm.

Defendant Karl George Sanft does not dispute that sometime after midnight on February 2, 2010, in Hayward, he stabbed Angelito Erasquin 22 times, and James Wightman 48 times. When, several hours later, he was approached by Sunnyvale police, his behavior was sufficiently strange that he was taken into custody and evaluated in accordance with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5150). On February 4, defendant was released by the hospital into the custody of Hayward police. Defendant was transported to another psychiatric facility, and then to the Hayward jail, where he was interviewed later in the evening of that day. After being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, during the course of a lengthy interrogation, defendant admitted to killing Erasquin and Wightman.

A jury convicted defendant of rape and other crimes against his former girlfriend. Defendant timely appeals, challenging the admission of prior crimes evidence involving a roommate and another former girlfriend. He also challenges the exclusion of a defense exhibit. We affirm.

Defendants Gurbaksh Chahal and Gravity4, Inc. (collectively “the Gravity4 Defendants”) appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration of a discrimination, harassment, and retaliation lawsuit filed by plaintiff Encarnita Alonso, a former executive at the company. The Gravity4 Defendants contend the trial court erred when it ruled that no contract was ever formed so as to compel arbitration. We agree and also reject Alonso’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. We reverse.

In 2010, L.H. admitted to first degree robbery, which is an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), as alleged in the first petition. Eleven months later L.H. moved to set aside his admission on the ground that he had not been fully informed of the immigration consequences of the plea. The motion was denied in 2012 and L.H. appeals (A135197). We will affirm.

A jury found defendant Grant Milton Anderson guilty of trespassing, battery, resisting arrest, and numerous counts of public intoxication. The trial court found Anderson guilty of failure to register as a sex offender by a person living as a transient. The court granted a three-year term of probation to include 258 days in county jail. After Anderson was found in violation of his probation conditions, the court imposed an aggregate term of three years.Anderson challenges his conviction for trespassing. He contends the evidence was insufficient to prove that the person who asked police to remove him from the subject property was an agent of the property owners. We conclude this claim is without merit. We will affirm the judgment.

Defendant David Michael Pietrzak appeals the indeterminate third strike sentence imposed after he was convicted by plea of three counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460) and one count of theft from an elderly person (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d)). Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike his prior strike convictions (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero)), and that his resulting sentence is cruel and unusual under the United States and California constitutions. Defendant further argues, and the People concede, that the trial court erred by imposing a life sentence for theft from an elderly person and by imposing prior serious felony conviction enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)) for prior convictions where charges had been brought and tried together. For the reasons stated here, we will accept the People’s concessions but find no other error. We will reverse the judgment.

A jury found defendant James Carothers guilty of possessing child pornography. (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a).) The trial court granted a five-year term of probation and imposed probation conditions including one year in county jail and the requirement that Carothers complete a sex offender management program as mandated by section 1203.067.

Appellant Brian Bruce Smith appeals his conviction following a plea of no contest to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). After independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

After a contested hearing, appellant/defendant Christopher Jones was found to have violated the terms of his Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS). On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm.

After a contested hearing, appellant/defendant Christopher Jones was found to have violated the terms of his Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS). On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm.

After a contested hearing, appellant/defendant Christopher Jones was found to have violated the terms of his Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS). On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm.

After a contested hearing, appellant/defendant Christopher Jones was found to have violated the terms of his Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS). On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Mario Alberto Ochoa 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. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.