CA Unpub Decisions

John Rizzo and The Marina Tenants Association
(collectively Rizzo) sought declaratory and injunctive relief
against the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (the Board)
on the ground that it violated the Brown Act by approving a real
property transaction in a closed session. Rizzo appeals from the
judgment entered after the trial court granted defendants’ motion
for summary judgment. He contends the judgment should be
reversed because defendants admitted they violated the Brown
Act by permitting board staff to negotiate the property
transaction away from public view. We disagree and thus affirm.

San Francisco police officers observed the defendant, Jose J. Jimenez, alone on a
city street at 3:00 a.m. about two blocks from, and walking in a direction generally away
from, a freshly reported robbery. Jimenez was detained at gunpoint, ordered to the
ground, and handcuffed. A subsequent search of Jimenez’s person led to discovery of the
robbery proceeds. Jimenez’s motion to suppress all evidence resulting from his seizure
was denied. We affirm

Jeffrey Antwan Shannon appeals the denial of his petition
under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36 or the
Act) to recall his third strike indeterminate sentence of 25 years
to life in prison. (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.126.) Appellant contends
the trial court erred in determining that appellant was ineligible
for recall and resentencing under section 1170.126 based on the
court’s factual finding that appellant had a disqualifying juvenile
adjudication. We disagree and affirm

Gilberto Rodriguez appeals from the denial of his motion to
vacate a guilty plea entered in 1986. (Pen. Code,1 § 1016.5.)
Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his section
1016.5 motion to vacate the plea on the ground that he failed to
exercise due diligence in bringing his motion to vacate nearly 30
years after entering the plea. He further maintains that he was
entitled to relief under section 1016.5 because at the time of his
plea, the court did not advise him of the immigration
consequences of a conviction, an adverse immigration
consequence was a likely result of the conviction, and he was
prejudiced by the trial court’s error in failing to advise him of the
immigration consequences of a conviction when it accepted his
plea. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of
relief under section 1016.5 based on appellant’s nearly 30-year
delay in bringing his motion. We therefore affirm

At a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court removed D.S. (child) from his parents, found there were no relative able and willing to provide a concurrent planning home for him, placed him in the care of Children and Family Services (CFS), and ordered services for father, but not mother. Mother appeals, contending the court failed to consider relative placement according to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 and her child was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

The Riverside County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that defendant and appellant N.P. (minor) was found in a public place under the influence of intoxicating liquors and drugs. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f).) Minor admitted the allegation, and a juvenile court placed her on probation for six months, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a). Minor subsequently violated her probation. The court adjudged her a ward of the court, and placed her in the custody of her parents. After several probation violations and unsuccessful in-state placements, the court ordered minor placed in an out-of-state facility.

Francisco Alexander Sanchez, Jr. appeals from the
judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted
of first degree burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459; count 1), false
imprisonment by violence (§ 236; count 2), criminal threats
(§ 422, subd. (a); count 3), and assault with a firearm (§ 245,
subd. (a)(2); count 4). The jury also found true the personal
firearm use allegations as to counts 1, 2, and 4. (§ 12022.5,
subd. (a).) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true
two prior serious felony allegations and one prior prison term
allegation, based on appellant’s admissions. The court granted
appellant’s Romero2 motion as to one of the prior serious felony
convictions (a 1994 robbery) and sentenced appellant to an
aggregate term of 36 years 8 months in state prison.3

Defendant and appellant, Criss Duane Chesshir, appeals from an order denying his Proposition 47 petition to designate his 2002 felony conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)) as a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. For the reasons we explain, we affirm the order denying the petition.
Defendant claims his Proposition 47 petition was erroneously denied because, in enacting Proposition 47, an initiative measure, the voters intended to include felony convictions for receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d) worth $950 or less within the class of felony convictions eligible to be designated as misdemeanors under Proposition 47—for example, felony convictions for receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)).

The jury convicted defendant James Robert Stanford, Jr., of corporal injury on a dating partner (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a), count 1) , assault by means likely to produce great bodily harm (§ 245, subd. (a)(4), count 2), and simple battery (§ 242, count 3). The jury found as to counts 1 and 2 that defendant had two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 30 years to life in state prison.

In this appeal, we affirm defendant Tyrell Tatum’s judgment
of conviction. After review, we reject defendant’s challenges based
on alleged prosecutorial misconduct and alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel.

Defendant Gloria Maria Hernandez was arrested and charged after a search of her residence turned up bindles of methamphetamine, scales, and a loaded gun. A jury convicted defendant of possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1), being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), and resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)). She was placed on three years’ formal probation. She appealed the convictions.
On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence (1) that she possessed methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm in count 2; and (2) that she knew the stolen property, a handgun, was stolen in count 4. We affirm.

Appellant T.L. “hacked” into his high school’s computer system, reportedly
causing more than $100,000 worth of damage. He was declared a ward of the juvenile
court and placed on probation after he admitted an allegation that he had knowingly
disrupted a computer network in violation of Penal Code section 502, subdivision (c)(5).
(Welf & Inst. Code, § 602.)1

K.L.’s paternal grandfather (grandfather) repeatedly sexually abused her over a four-year period. Her father, Cesar L. (father), knew of the abuse and did not stop it. Instead, he continued to allow grandfather access to K.L. A juvenile court determined then eight-year-old K.L. came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d); at a dispositional hearing, the court denied father reunification services and ordered “no contact or visitation between father” and K.L.
Father appeals. He claims the court erred by ordering no contact with K.L. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Nicholas James Atkerson appeals from the superior
court’s order denying his petition filed under Penal Code section 1170.18.1
We affirmwithout prejudice to consideration of a subsequent petition that supplies evidence of his
eligibility regarding count 8.