CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
A jury convicted defendant Mark Anthony Rodriguez of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)) in a second trial after the first jury was unable to reach a verdict. The jury found a principal in the robbery used a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (b), (e)(1)) and found the gang enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) true. The court sentenced defendant to 13 years in state prison, consisting of a three-year middle term on the robbery conviction and a consecutive 10-year term on the firearm enhancement. Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence, cumulative error requires reversal, the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and the court erred in imposing restitution fines. Finding no such errors, we affirm.
|
|
Defendant Anastacio Vera was convicted of three counts of lewd acts upon a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), one count of forcible lewd acts upon a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of sodomy with a minor under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (c)(1)). On appeal, he argues that his due process rights were violated when the court repeatedly made comments to the jury that diminished the presumption of innocence and suggested the burden of proof was something other than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree and reverse the judgment.
|
|
Appellant, Amethyst Thompson, pleaded no contest to two counts of felony child abuse/neglect (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)[1]; counts 1, 2). The court imposed the four-year midterm sentence on count 1 and a concurrent four-year midterm sentence on count 2.
On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in sentencing her to prison rather than placing her on probation. We affirm. |
|
A jury convicted defendant Jaime Jezzuel Lopez of first degree murder and found true the special circumstance he committed the murder during a robbery. The court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Defendant contends the court erred by excluding evidence he was deported to Mexico six weeks after the murder and voluntarily returned to the United States sometime later. He also alleges the court erred by misreading an instruction to the jury. We affirm the judgment. |
|
At a jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation that appellant, Gerardo M., a minor, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). At the subsequent disposition hearing, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] and ordered, inter alia, that appellant be committed to the Tulare County Youth Facility (Youth Facility) for a period of 365 days. The instant appeal, from the orders made at the jurisdiction and disposition hearings, followed.
On appeal, appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his commitment to the Youth Facility. We affirm. |
|
Appellant, Amethyst Thompson, pleaded no contest to two counts of felony child abuse/neglect (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)[1]; counts 1, 2). The court imposed the four-year midterm sentence on count 1 and a concurrent four-year midterm sentence on count 2.
On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in sentencing her to prison rather than placing her on probation. We affirm. |
|
Defendants Ray Gutierrez, Jr., and Alvaro Leal Saldana, Jr., stand convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)), during the commission of which a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)), and which was committed for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Following a bifurcated court trial, each was found to have suffered a prior serious felony conviction that was also a strike. (§ 667, subds. (a) & (d).) Each was sentenced to a total term of five years plus 75 years to life in prison and ordered to pay restitution and various fees, fines, and penalties. Both appeal. We affirm the judgments.
|
|
Defendants Ray Gutierrez, Jr., and Alvaro Leal Saldana, Jr., stand convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)), during the commission of which a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)), and which was committed for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Following a bifurcated court trial, each was found to have suffered a prior serious felony conviction that was also a strike. (§ 667, subds. (a) & (d).) Each was sentenced to a total term of five years plus 75 years to life in prison and ordered to pay restitution and various fees, fines, and penalties. Both appeal. We affirm the judgments.
|
|
J.G., father, appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights to his daughter. Father argues the juvenile court should have applied the beneficial parental bond exception. Mother has not appealed. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we reject father’s appeal and affirm the judgment.
|
|
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Augustine Hernandez was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to unlawfully possessing methamphetamine with a loaded, operable firearm (count 1) and possessing a firearm as a felon (count 2) and admitting he committed count 2 for the benefit of a criminal street gang and two prison priors. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1; Pen. Code, §§ 29800, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b), 667.5, subd. (b).)[1] Additional charges and prison prior allegations were dismissed. Defendant appeals and his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
Defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Counsel notified defendant of these actions and further advised him of his right to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wished to bring to this court’s attention. Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and conclude there are no arguable issues. |
|
Defendant Darryl McGhee appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for two counts of forcible oral copulation upon his ex-girlfriend, Jane Doe (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A)).[1] The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years in prison.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding evidence of family law and child custody proceedings involving defendant and Jane Doe. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred when it overruled his objection to reading to the jury his testimony given during the first trial, in which defendant admitted he was guilty of committing a crime. Defendant further asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to object to the prosecutor asking him if he committed a crime. We conclude there was no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment. |
|
Defendant Jodie James Sanders provided services for privately-owned Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs). During a dispute about thefts from the ATMs, defendant shot and killed Robert Jackson.
A jury convicted defendant of three counts of grand theft in violation of Penal Code section 487,[1] and one count of second degree murder with true findings on the allegations of personal discharge of a firearm causing death. (§§ 187, subd. (a), and 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d).) The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for the second degree murder plus 25 years to life for the gun-use enhancement. The court sentenced defendant to an additional consecutive term of four years and four months for the three theft offenses. Defendant’s total sentence is 40 years to life and four years and four months.[2] On appeal, defendant challenges the second degree murder conviction but not the three theft convictions. We reject defendant’s sole contention on appeal that it was not proved “beyond a reasonable doubt†that defendant shot Jackson “Based On An Unreasonable Belief He Needed to Defend Himself Against Imminent Deadly Force.†We affirm the judgment. |
|
After defendant Eric Vincent Bullock was involved in an accident with a truck on State Route 60, a jury convicted him of two Vehicle Code offenses: driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury and driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater causing injury. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subds. (a) and (b).) The jury also found defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code sections 12022.7, subdivision (a), and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8).[1] The court sentenced defendant to six years in prison.
At the scene, defendant blamed the accident on his car being rearended by another vehicle, forcing his car into the truck. At trial, defendant claimed his car had stalled, causing him to lose control. On appeal, defendant makes four arguments: there was insufficient evidence for his convictions because of the possibility of a mechanical failure; the trial court erred by not instructing the jury regarding the defense of sudden peril; there was prosecutorial error; and the trial court erred in imposing the upper term of three years. We reject defendant’s appeal and affirm the judgment. |
|
A. and D. were repeatedly molested while they were staying with their grandmother (Grandmother). Both A. and D. identified defendant as a perpetrator of the molestations and testified that he showed them pornographic movies. Defendant was convicted of exhibiting pornography to A. and D., two forcible lewd and lascivious acts upon a minor, two forcible oral copulation charges, and a multiple-victim of sexual assault enhancement.
Defendant claims on appeal that his rights to due process and a fair trial under the federal Constitution were violated by the trial court allowing the prosecutor to question him about a restraining order that had been granted by another court based on accusations of his ex-wife that he threatened acts of violence against her. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
