500 matching results for "mk":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Edward Lee Sanderson, Sr., pleaded no contest to criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and admitted a strike allegation (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Sentencing defendant on this and two unrelated cases, the trial court imposed an eight-year state prison term. (In a subsequent proceeding, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $12,911.36 in victim restitution for the cost of a security system.)
On appeal, defendant contends the restitution award was unauthorized because he was not convicted of a violent felony. Since the victim restitution was for the purchase of a security system for a place of business rather than a residence, defendant’s claim is without merit. In addition, relying on a recent decision from this court, we conclude conviction of a violent felony is not a prerequisite to victim restitution for the cost of a security system. We affirm the restitution order. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant, Thomas Michael Dixon, appeals from a judgment entered after his guilty plea to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and stipulation to serve a prison sentence of 19 years to life. Defendant argues the recent amendment of section 3051 extending youthful offender parole hearings to individuals who committed the controlling offense at the age of 25 or younger, entitles him to remand to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining whether he has had an adequate opportunity to present evidence relevant to that parole hearing and to present such evidence if the court determines he did not. The People agree defendant is entitled to limited remand for these purposes.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Lavell Graves appeals from a judgment entered after a jury verdict finding him guilty of criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422—counts one and two); witness intimidation (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)—counts three and four); assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)—counts five, six and seven); possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)—count eight); and unlawful brandishing of a firearm (§ 417, subd. (a)(2)—counts nine, ten and eleven). The jury also found true that defendant used a firearm in counts one through four (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and that he had used a firearm in counts five through seven (§ 12022.5, subds. (a) & (d)).
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury found defendant Bryan Scott Cook guilty of second degree murder for fatally stabbing the victim. At trial, defendant maintained that he had been caring for the victim—his friend of several decades, who was in poor health—when the victim twice stabbed himself, which led to defendant, “[w]ithout thinking,” stabbing the victim four more times. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder. He argues substantial evidence obligated the instruction. We agree and will reverse.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Peter Jeremy Dirksen appeals from the judgment after he pled guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (b)) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and admitted an allegation that he inflicted great bodily injury when he assaulted his victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Dirksen also admitted allegations that he suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and that he served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to 23 years to life in state prison.
Dirksen suffocated a woman in a Port Hueneme motel. While awaiting trial on his murder charge, he hit his cell mate and fractured his cheekbone. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Joe Polk appeals the trial court’s denial of his request to strike Penal Code section 12022.53 firearm enhancements after remand for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 620). The trial court denied the request, concluding that the original sentence was appropriate. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record. Having done so, we affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s request.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In this appeal from an order terminating parental rights, mother contends the juvenile court committed reversible error by failing to provide the notification required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). We conclude that because the juvenile court had been advised of the child’s possible Apache or Choctaw ancestry, notice of the dependency proceedings should have been given to those tribes and to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). We therefore conditionally reverse the termination order and remand for compliance with ICWA’s notice requirements.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Michelle Dian Biel appeals the trial court’s order revoking probation and ordering execution of a previously suspended six-year prison sentence. In July 2015, appellant pled guilty to furnishing heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and admitted an allegation that she personally inflicted great bodily injury (GBI) upon the person to whom she furnished the drug (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). She was placed on five years probation with terms and conditions including that she serve 365 days in county jail.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Daniel Curtis Colegrove appeals a judgment following conviction of lewd acts upon a child (five counts), and oral copulation of a person younger than 18 years old (three counts). (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (c)(1), former 288a, subd. (b)(1), 801.1, subd. (a) [statute of limitations].) We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the judgment and affirm. This appeal concerns sexual offenses that Colegrove committed against his teenage stepdaughter T. The sexual activity occurred over a period of six years, until T. graduated from high school and moved to Sacramento. Following her complaints to law enforcement many years later, T. made a pretext telephone call to Colegrove. During the call, Colegrove made incriminating statements, including describing the sexual acts as a recommended treatment for T.’s alleged sexsomnia. The telephone call was recorded and played at trial.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Graciela Elizabeth Lemus appeals an order revoking her outpatient status and placing her at the Department of State Hospitals-Patton (Patton). She contends (1) the trial court erred in placing her at Patton; (2) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (3) Penal Code section 1608 is unconstitutional. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant and appellant Bhuvandeep Singh Sethi was on probation and subject to search conditions when, on two separate occasions, police officers discovered drugs and incriminating evidence during investigatory searches. Although the officers did not initially detain defendant for the purpose of conducting a probation search, defendant informed them during the course of both investigations that he was on probation. The trial court found defendant violated the terms of his probation—which prohibited him from possessing or selling narcotics—and executed a previously suspended seven-year, eight-month sentence.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Saiffuddin Tariwala, Fnu Husaina and Shabbir Saifee (collectively “plaintiffs”) are the owners of a single-family residence located on Los Robles Road in Thousand Oaks (“Tariwala Property”). Defendant Keith Martin Mack is the owner of a neighboring property on Los Robles Road (“Mack Property”). Plaintiffs claim an easement over Mack’s driveway for ingress and egress to their property.
Plaintiffs brought this action against Mack after he blocked the driveway easement. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction preventing Mack from interfering with plaintiffs’ use of the easement. Mack, who is self-represented, contends the driveway easement was extinguished through the doctrine of merger and that the court erred by enforcing the easement pending resolution of this litigation. Based on the limited record presented, we conclude Mack has not met his burden of demonstrating an abuse of judicial discretion. We affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
In September 2006, Jesse Plasola and Sila Plasola ended their 13-year marriage. A decade later Jesse attempts to appeal the trial court’s orders awarding Sila half of the funds in his Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) and an interest in his Federal Employment Retirement System (FERS) pension. We lack appellate jurisdiction to review those orders.
In October 2016, Jesse, appearing in propria persona, filed motions to vacate Sila’s renewal of the TSP money judgment and to terminate spousal support. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate the renewal of the money judgment. We reverse the order denying Jesse’s motion to terminate spousal support and direct the court on remand to consider the factors in Family Code section 4320 in ruling on the motion. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Respondent Harbour Island Condominium Homeowners Association (COA) requested a preliminary injunction against appellant Susan Alexander seeking to mitigate noise; keep her dogs out of common areas in which pets are not allowed, and abstain from photographing the COA president at the community swimming pool. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction. We affirm.
|