CA Unpub Decisions

Following a jury trial, defendant Daeron Young was convicted of felony carrying a loaded concealed firearm, of which he was not the registered owner. (Former Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (b)(6).)[1] The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on five years’ formal probation and ordered him to serve 180 days in the county jail. Defendant was awarded presentence custody credit of 27 days, but was not awarded any presentence conduct credits.
On appeal, defendant contends 1) the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial based on improperly admitted evidence, and 2) he is entitled to presentence conduct credits. We modify the award of credits and affirm as modified.

Appellant Terri Gonzalez, Warden of the California Men's Colony, appeals from the Los Angeles County Superior Court's March 20, 2012 order granting life prisoner Roger Sundberg's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The order reverses the decision of the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole to Mr. Sundberg.
Appellant contends that the superior court erred in reversing the Parole Board's decision because some evidence supports the Board's decision to deny parole to Mr. Sundberg. We agree, and reverse the superior court's order.

Background
Sundberg pled guilty to second degree murder in the 1987 killing of his neighbor, Steven Summers. Mr. Sundberg had no prior criminal history.

J.C., presumed father (father) of now 16 year-old Joshua C., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, subdivision (c)[1] and its exit orders granting mother, J.G. (mother), sole legal and physical custody of Joshua and failing to order mandatory monitored visitation and conjoint counseling. We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of jurisdiction and its exit orders, except for its visitation order, which order we reverse and remand to the juvenile court.[2]

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Matthew Britt of possession for sale of a controlled substance, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in county jail and awarded him 344 days of presentence credit consisting of 172 days of actual custody credit and 172 days of conduct credit. On appeal, defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in its award of presentence credit. We affirm defendant’s conviction and order the abstract of judgment modified to reflect 346 days of presentence credit consisting of 173 of actual custody credit and 173 days of conduct credit.

The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) moves to dismiss the appeal of minors K.H. and A.H. (the minors), which appeal challenges the juvenile court’s disposition order removing custody of them from their father. According to DCFS, because the juvenile court returned custody of the minors to father on May 30, 2012, the appeal from the disposition order is moot. We agree and dismiss the appeal.

Defendant Kevin W. King appeals from his conviction following a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. Following our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende), we affirm.

Oganis Agdaian appeals from a sentence of 16 years to life following his conviction for murdering his wife. He contends the conviction should be reversed because (1) the trial court erred in dismissing a seated juror, (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in referring to his nontestimonial courtroom demeanor, and (3) the trial court admitted improper dog scent evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In this premises liability action, plaintiff Kristin Osterhout appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant The Regal Inn, a bar at which she suffered injuries when a third party assailant knocked her to the ground. Because we conclude that, as a matter of law, Osterhout could not establish the element of causation necessary to prevail in a negligence action, we affirm the judgment in favor of The Regal Inn.

ant) guilty of petty theft, and the trial court sentenced him to 15 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his pretrial request for self-representation pursuant to Farretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Farretta).
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for self-representation. We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Brandon X. Cordova of two counts of assault with a firearm and two counts of making criminal threats, and found true the personal use of a firearm enhancement as to all four counts. The jury acquitted defendant and appellant Carmello A. Placeres of the assault counts, but found him guilty on a separate charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and also found true the special allegation that defendant Placeres had suffered a prior felony conviction. Both defendants were sentenced to determinate terms in state prison, and both timely appealed.
Defendant Cordova contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting gang evidence, and committed sentencing error in violation of Penal Code section 654. Appointed counsel for defendant Placeres filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised. However, counsel requested we review sealed, confidential records for a possible violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady).
Respondent concedes there was sentencing error as to defendant Cordova. We agree and remand for resentencing as to defendant Cordova, but otherwise affirm his conviction. We affirm as to defendant Placeres, finding no colorable issues under Wende, including no Brady error.

Robert Duenas appeals from a judgment which sentences him to 23 years in state prison for one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm in addition to various firearm and gang enhancements. We affirm the judgment.

The former mayor of Temple City Cathrine (also known as Cathe or Catherine) Wilson was convicted of three counts of bribery and three counts of perjury. The bribes consisted of money given to Wilson by Jagath (Jay) Liyanage, the project manager, for a large development in Temple City. Liyanage worked for Randy Wang, who owned the property that was slated for development. The project was never built.
The perjury counts arose out of appellant’s grand jury testimony following an investigation into the bribes and arose out of forms she completed under penalty of perjury, on which she identified no gifts from Liyanage.
On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the trial court erred in amending the indictment; (2) evidence was admitted in violation of her rights under the confrontation clause; (3) the court erred in instructing the jury; and (4) the court erred in sentencing her to the high term on one count of bribery. She claims her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise several of these issues in the trial court. None of her arguments has merit. We affirm.

Appellant Mario Arriaga was convicted, following a jury trial, of the murder of Job Gonzalez in violation of Penal Code[1] section 187, subdivision (a) and one count of evading an officer with willful disregard for safety in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a). The jury deadlocked on the charge that appellant attempted to murder Elith Hernandez, Mr. Gonzalez's companion. The jury found true the allegations that the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4) and the allegations that a principal personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the murder within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e)(1). The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of 50 years to life in state prison.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting and voluntary manslaughter and in admitting evidence from Pablo Martinez. Appellant further contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the gang allegation, that section 12022.53, subdivision (e) violates equal protection, and that his custody credits were incorrectly calculated. We order appellant's custody credits corrected, as set forth in the disposition. We affirm the judgment of conviction in all other respects.

In connection with the killing of Guillermo Ramirez, a jury convicted appellant Louis Alan Rael of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.)[1] The jury also found the gang enhancement alleged in connection with the murder to be true. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Finally, the jury found the allegations that a principal in the commission of the crime personally used a handgun, personally discharged a handgun, and personally discharged a handgun causing death, to be not true. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d) & (e).) The trial court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison for the second degree murder conviction. In connection with the gang enhancement found true, the court ordered that he not be considered for parole until he served at least 15 years in prison. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(5).)
Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal, one of which we find to be meritorious. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the true finding with respect to the gang enhancement. We order it, and the minimum 15-year term before parole eligibility that it requires, stricken.[2] In all other respects, we affirm the judgment below.