CA Unpub Decisions

A jury acquitted Andre Anthony Simmons of first and second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187),[1] but convicted him of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192). The jury also convicted him of shooting at an inhabited motor vehicle (§ 246). As to both crimes, the jury found true allegations Simmons personally used a firearm in the commission of them (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Conversely, as to both crimes, the jury found false allegations Simmons committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). The jury similarly acquitted Simmons of active gang participation (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Simmons to 15 years in prison.
Simmons appeals, arguing the trial court violated his constitutional rights by allowing the prosecution to use statements in its case-in-chief obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). We conclude no Miranda violation occurred and affirm the judgment.

Ezequiel V., a minor, appeals the finding he committed a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (victim) by use of force or duress in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1).

Plaintiff Robert Czajkowski (Appellant) filed this action for damages against defendants Haskell & White, LLP, an accounting firm and five of its members (together Respondents)[1], alleging professional negligence and related theories arising out of their performance, during 2001 and 2002, of auditing duties for a company (MeltroniX; the Company) of which Appellant was formerly the president and chief executive officer (CEO). The Company was forced to cease operations in 2002, largely due to its liability for unpaid payroll taxes, and in federal proceedings lasting from 2006 to 2009, Appellant as its CEO was personally assessed with over $500,000 in its unpaid federal income taxes and penalties. In 2009, Appellant settled the matter by paying the Company's back taxes and penalties of over $340,000, and incurred attorney fees.
In this action, Appellant claims Respondents breached the duties imposed on them by the engagement letters with the Company, by failing to disclose information that came to their attention in 2001 and 2002 about the nonpayment of such taxes caused by misconduct of the Company's former chief financial officer (CFO Randy Siville; not a party here). Appellant asserts he excusably did not discover any basis for a claim against Respondents until 2008, when their auditing work papers were subpoenaed by the government in the federal proceedings, and he obtained a copy.

A jury convicted Jose Alfredo Solorza of first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)) and arson (§ 451, subd. (c)). It also found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder was intentional and involved the use of torture. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18).) Because Solorza was 15 years old at the time he committed the crime, the court sentenced him to 29 years to life.
Codefendant Anthony Bobadilla pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd (a)) and other charges, and was sentenced to 23 years in prison in exchange for his truthful testimony against Solorza and Roman Aldana, who were tried together before separate juries. Aldana's jury convicted him of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), found true a special circumstance allegation of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)), and sentenced him to death.
Solorza contends the trial court committed reversible error by (1) denying his motion to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta); and (2) by refusing to instruct the jury with a pinpoint instruction regarding the defense of duress. He also contends (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument and (4) the court erroneously calculated his custody credits. The People concede the latter point, and we modify the judgment to award Solorza six additional days of custody credits, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Juan de Dios Alvarez 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

In case No. 06F10056, defendant Ignacio Leyba entered a plea of no contest to possession of cocaine while armed. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation.
In case No. 10F06425, a jury convicted defendant of second degree murder, attempted premeditated murder, and being a felon in possession of a gun. It also sustained allegations of personal use of a gun resulting in death or great bodily injury. It acquitted him of witness intimidation. The trial court imposed an indeterminate term of 72 years to life on the shooting counts and a concurrent term for the gun possession. Pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.2, the trial court awarded defendant credit only for his actual days of presentence custody.
Based on this conduct, the court also found defendant in violation of probation in case No. 06F10056. It revoked probation and imposed a concurrent sentence (awarding conduct credits equal to his custody credits against this term).
Defendant filed a notice of appeal in both cases. With respect to his 2010 offenses, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his gang associations. We shall affirm the judgment in that case. He does not raise any issues in connection with case No. 06F10056; we accordingly deem that appeal abandoned and shall dismiss it.

Michael M., father of the minors, appeals from the judgment of the juvenile court removing the minors from his custody and ordering reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 358, 361, 395.[1]) Father contends the court erred in removing the minors from his custody because there was insufficient evidence of detriment to the minors if returned to him. We affirm.

A modification decision.

Celeste M., mother of two-year-old Ezequiel M., appeals from the from the juvenile court's order denying her petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388)[1] and terminating her parental rights (§ 366.26). We affirm.

Aaron W. (father) and Hope W. (mother), the biological parents of one-year-old Brody W., appeal from the juvenile court's order denying a petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388)[1] and terminating their parental rights (§ 366.26). We affirm.

A father appeals from the dependency court’s orders following a permanency review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22, terminating the father’s reunification services and placing his “medically fragile” daughter in a long-term living arrangement. We affirm.[1]

Defendant Eric Lionell Cooper appeals from the judgment entered after jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with enhancements under sections 667, subds. (b)-(i) and (a)-(d) and 667, subd. (a)(1) of that code. His appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which she states that she finds no arguable issue to raise on appeal and asks that the court make an independent review of the record to determine if there is any such issue. On March 21, 2012, we wrote to defendant inviting him to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contention or argument he wishes this court to consider. To date we have received no response.
We have conducted an independent review pursuant to the Supreme Court’s direction in Wende. Having done so, we find no arguable issue on appeal.

A modification decision.

Parents Diana G. and Cesar O. appeal from orders of the juvenile court denying their petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 for modification of orders[1] and termination of their parental rights under section 366.26. They contend that it was in the best interests of their son (also named Cesar O.[2]) to grant their petitions to modify orders of the juvenile court denying reunification services and placing the child in the home of his paternal grandparents. They also contend the juvenile court erred in finding that the beneficial parent/child exception to the preference for adoption did not apply in selecting a permanent plan under section 366.26. We find no error and affirm.