CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant and appellant Jeri Deallen Kennedy guilty of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 1)[1] and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 2). In regard to counts 1 and 2, the jury also found true that the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) As to count 1, the jury further found true that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (e)(1)); that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (e)(1)); and that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, which caused great bodily injury to the victim (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)). As to count 2, the jury also found true that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5) and that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7).

Defendant and appellant Danny Ray Campbell was charged by information with taking or driving a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 1) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a), count 2).[1] The information also alleged that he had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and that he had one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). A jury found defendant guilty of count 2, but not guilty of count 1. He admitted the prior conviction allegations. The court sentenced defendant to a total term of five years eight months in state prison.
On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for receiving stolen property. We affirm.

Pursuant to a plea to the court in two consolidated cases, defendant and appellant Ray Ford pled guilty to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, count 1);[1] one count of first degree burglary (§ 459, count 2); one count of grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2), count 3); and two counts of second degree burglary (§ 459, counts 4 & 5). Defendant also admitted that he had personally used a firearm in the commission of the robbery. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) In return, defendant was sentenced to the agreed upon indicated sentence of 14 years four months in state prison with credit for time served. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court violated section 654 by imposing a concurrent term for the grand theft of a firearm charge in count 3. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Juan Jaime Banderas appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Defendant argues he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the clear immigration consequences of his plea. The People argue this appeal should be dismissed because the trial court’s order denying defendant’s writ petition is not an appealable order. As discussed below, we agree with the People that defendant’s remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court, which he has done. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.

Kenneth G. appeals orders entered at a permanency planning selection and implementation hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.

Christopher P. appeals orders denying his request for an evaluation of the paternal grandmother's home under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Family Code section 7900 et seq., at a special hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.

Douglas H. appeals orders entered at a permanency planning selection and implementation hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.

Michael Nelson pled guilty to one count of violating Health and Safety Code section 11355, selling a substance in lieu of a controlled substance. The court sentenced appellant to a stipulated prison term of 16 months and ordered it be served in local custody with no further period of supervision. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5)(A).

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found true the charges that minor Devin A. committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),[1] assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)). The court declared Devin a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and sentenced her to 90 days in the Short Term Offender Program (STOP).
Devin appeals the true findings of robbery and grand theft from a person, claiming the evidence is insufficient to sustain either count. She also contends that if the court affirms the true finding for robbery, the true finding for grand theft from a person must be stricken as a lesser included offense of robbery.

A jury convicted Buenaventura Rafael Bailon of 14 counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 by force or fear (Pen. Code,[1] § 288, subd. (b)). The jury also found as to each count that Bailon victimized multiple children (§ 667.1, subd. (c)), and that with the exception of count 11, Bailon had substantial sexual contact with the victims. (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8).) Bailon was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 195 years to life in prison.
Bailon filed a timely notice of appeal. Bailon's appeal is very limited. He challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to show three counts as to a five-year-old boy, D., contending the evidence only shows two counts were proved. We have reviewed the record and conclude there is sufficient evidence to prove the three acts on which the jury convicted regarding D.

Bud Shelton appeals the judgment sentencing him to prison for 11 years four months after he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664; undesignated section reference are to this code) and admitted he personally used a firearm in the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Shelton contends imposition of the 10‑year enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b) violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. We agree with the line of California cases rejecting such contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Diane Barrera Trejo appeals from a judgment of conviction after jury trial. A jury convicted Trejo of first degree murder. On appeal, Trejo contends that the trial court erred (1) in failing to instruct the jury on the principles of accomplice liability, and, in particular, in failing to instruct the jury that it could not convict her based solely on an accomplice's testimony; and (2) in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on a heat of passion/provocation defense. We conclude that both contentions are without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury found Anthony Paul Navarro guilty of one count of aggravated mayhem (Pen. Code, § 205),[1] two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of intimidation of a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)) arising out of a confrontation he and his father, Michael Ray Navarro, had with Jessica Dickinson and Sandra Robles.[2] The jury also found true allegations that Anthony had two prior felony convictions for purposes of the "Three Strikes" law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)
The trial court sentenced Navarro to prison for 100 years to life, imposing a consecutive prison term of 25 years to life for each conviction (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(ii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)(ii)), but staying execution of the term imposed for the conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 654). The court also ordered Anthony to pay $70 per conviction for court security and facilities fees. (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a).)
On appeal, Anthony contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial, which was based on new evidence from Jessica's brother Jesse that Anthony was not present when Jessica was assaulted. Anthony also contends the court imposed an excessive amount of court security fees.
We modify the judgment to reduce the amount of court security fees and also to add to the sentence for each of Anthony's current convictions the mandatory consecutive prison term of five years for each of his prior serious felony convictions, which the superior court failed to impose. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendants Floyd Lavender and Michael Gaines of the kidnapping (Pen. Code,[1] § 207, subd. (a)) and first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) of Courtney Bowser, and the torture (§ 206) of Bowser and two other victims (Kristen Martin and Michael Hughes) during the same alleged crime spree. The court sentenced each defendant to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life on the murder charge and a consecutive five-year determinate term for the kidnapping conviction. The court also sentenced each defendant to three life terms on the torture counts, to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the term for the murder conviction.