CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant, Jarl Turner, appeals the judgment entered following his conviction for voluntary manslaughter and possession of a firearm by a felon, with firearm use, prior prison term and prior serious felony conviction findings (Pen. Code, §§ 192, 12021, 12022.5, 667.5, 667, subd. (b)-(i)).[1] He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 34 years to life.
The judgment is affirmed as modified and remanded for resentencing.

A jury found defendant and appellant Jesus Murieta guilty of second degree murder with a personal use of a weapon. He contends on appeal that: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; and (2) an intoxication instruction denied him his federal due process and equal protection rights. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Yu Xin Mei Wang (Wang) appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting sole legal and physical custody of her twin sons to respondent Andrew Ko. (Fam. Code, § 7611.)[1] Wang did not appear at trial and her counsel observed the trial but did not make an appearance. Therefore, Wang forfeited all of her contentions on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

M.B. (Mother) and A.J. (Father) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to their one-year old son, Caleb, contending the evidence does not show they are unfit parents, as due process requires. We disagree and affirm the juvenile court's order.

Pursuant to a November 2008 negotiated disposition, defendant Craig Steven Bowman (appellant) pled no contest to infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) (section 273.5(a)),[1] admitted an infliction of great bodily injury (GBI) enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), and was placed on probation. Following the revocation of his probation he was sentenced to nine years in state prison. On appeal, he contends the court erroneously relied on his â€

A jury convicted appellant Timothy Hicks (defendant) of two counts of voluntary manslaughter and one count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant raises claims of constitutional and statutory error at sentencing. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Jung Taek Huh, a contractor doing business as Omega Construction Co., (hereafter, collectively Huh) entered into a written agreement with respondent Hwan Joo Jeong to build a new residence in Los Altos for Jeong and his wife, respondent Soon Ryeon Jeong. A dispute regarding the construction arose and Huh filed an action against the Jeongs for breach of contract and for mechanic's lien foreclosure. The Jeongs cross-complained, alleging Huh had breached the contract because the construction of their residence was defective and untimely.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Defendant Jan B. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights over (now) 15-year-old Tiffany S., and placing her for adoption. She contends the court wrongly relied upon the adoptive mother's unenforceable promise of visitation when it declined to apply the â€

Snizhana Willis sued London Coin Galleries, Inc. (LCG) for breach of contract and conversion – claims stemming from a series of six separate transactions gone awry. The transactions with LCG were entered into by Willis's husband, but Willis claimed, and the trial court found, he was acting as Willis's agent and thus she was the proper plaintiff. In each transaction, Willis gave LCG valuable gold or silver coins, and received a sum of money in return. Each of the transactions was documented as a â€

A jury convicted defendant Ismael Nunez of all three counts with which he was charged: murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a));[1] attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)); and street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a).) As to the murder conviction (count 1), the jury found true the street gang special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). The jury also found several charged firearm and street gang enhancements to be true. The court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life in prison, plus two consecutive life without the possibility of parole terms.
In his appeal, Nunez raises eight distinct issues. Nunez also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he contends his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to several aspects of the case. We affirm the judgment (with one slight modification with regard to the restitution order) and deny Nunez's petition.

Appellant Joseph Martin Perez appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and he admitted a strike allegation (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1); 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1)) and a prior prison enhancement allegation (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed the midterm of two years doubled to four years for the strike allegation, plus one year for the prior prison enhancement allegation, for a total term of five years. On appeal, Perez contends the court erred by: (1) denying his suppression motion because he was detained without reasonable suspicion; and (2) admitting his un-Mirandized[1] statements made while he was illegally detained. We affirm.

Appellant Luis Alberto Valencia challenges his convictions for kidnapping and first degree murder with special circumstances on the grounds (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated, (2) the testimony of an accomplice, Luis Humberto Vazquez, was not corroborated, (3) there was instructional error relating to accomplice testimony, and (4) the prosecutor committed error pursuant to People v. Griffin (1965) 380 U.S. 609 (Griffin). Valencia also contends the abstract of judgment should be amended because the restitution ordered pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4[1] must be jointly and severally payable by all those convicted of the murder of Rosa Avina.
We reject the challenges to the convictions and the abstract of judgment and affirm the judgment.