CA Unpub Decisions

On August 26, 2009, petitioner David Daniel Tabarez was sentenced to state prison for two years eight months based upon convictions for evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). At the time of sentencing, Penal Code section 4019 provided that conduct credits could be earned at the rate of two days for every four days served. (Pen. Code, § 4019, former subds. (b), (c).)[1] Petitioner received credits of 73 days for actual custody and 36 days for conduct, a total of 109 days. Petitioner did not appeal, and his judgment became final on October 26, 2009.
Effective January 25, 2010, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 3X 18,[2] which amended section 4019 (the new amendment) to provide essentially two days of conduct credit for every two days actually served in presentence custody to a class of prisoners (eligible prisoners) deemed safe for early release from prison. This class consists of prisoners who were neither required to register as sex offenders, nor committed for serious felonies, nor previously convicted of serious or violent felonies. The People do not contest that petitioner is an eligible prisoner.
Petitioner, an eligible prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition in the superior court seeking retroactive application of the new amendment under equal protection principles.[3] The court denied relief, concluding the new amendment did not apply to judgments that became final prior to January 25, 2010.
Petitioner then filed a petition in this court, renewing his argument. The People argue that equal protection was not violated because the statute seeks to encourage good conduct by prisoners awaiting final sentencing and thus excludes prisoners whose judgments are final; hence, the two groups are not similarly situated. The People also propose a rational basis for the disparate treatment, viz, that retroactive application of the new amendment to final judgments would violate the separation of powers doctrine. We reject the People's contentions and conclude the new amendment is retroactive to all eligible prisoners irrespective of the date their judgment became final.

Appointed counsel for defendant Temiga Louise Brown has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment, but shall order a corrected abstract of judgment to properly reflect all fees imposed, as explained post.

After his suppression motion at his preliminary hearing was denied, defendant Lavell Johnny Wright pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359.) He later withdrew the plea and resubmitted the suppression motion to the trial court sitting as a superior court. (See Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m); People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 895-897.) When the motion was again denied, defendant reentered the no contest plea. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years with conditions including 90 days of incarceration with credit for three days.[1]
On appeal, defendant contends the warrantless search of his person was not supported by probable cause and his admission that he had marijuana on his person was the fruit of an â€

A jury convicted defendant Louis Charles Romano, age 63, of two crimes, forcible foreign object penetration (count 5) and forcible oral copulation of 15-year-old R.H. (count 6). He was acquitted of possessing obscene matter depicting sexual conduct by minors (count 7). The jury deadlocked, a mistrial was declared, and dismissals were entered on four additional counts involving victim V.H., R.H.'s younger sister (counts 1 through 4). As a result, multiple-victim enhancement allegations on counts 5 and 6 were also dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the upper term of eight years on count 5, plus a fully consecutive upper term of eight years on count 6.[1]
On appeal, defendant contends (1) there was insufficient evidence that the sexual acts were committed by force or violence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to sever the child pornography count, on which he was acquitted, from the remaining counts; and (3) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance to the extent that he should have objected to the volume of computer evidence. We affirm the judgment.

In 1868 the Legislature authorized the construction of the Sacramento Drainage Canal (Canal) by defendant County of Sacramento (County). The Canal accommodated runoff of water from storms, channeling it from the City of Sacramento (City) into the southern part of Sacramento County. In 1878 the Legislature enacted a statute that transferred control of the Canal from the County to the City. In 1904 floods severely damaged the Canal. After the City declined to repair the Canal, the County undertook restoration but abandoned the effort in 1906.
A portion of the Canal lies adjacent to the Point Pleasant area of Sacramento County. Plaintiff Friends of the Point Pleasant Area (Friends), a nonprofit unincorporated association, brought suit against the County and defendant Sacramento County Water Agency (Agency). Friends sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the County and the Agency have a legal duty to operate, maintain, repair, and improve the Canal.
The County and the Agency moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Friends appeals, arguing the undisputed facts reveal the County has a legal duty to maintain the Canal, and the action is not barred by the statute of limitations, laches, or a lack of justiciability. We shall affirm the judgment.

Early on the morning of December 22, 2009, defendant Fredy Hernandez stabbed his former girlfriend, Doris Salguero, 21 times or more with a tool that was similar to an ice pick. Defendant told the police that he had followed her from a party in Carson to her home in Reseda, confronted her inside the parking garage of her condominium building, formed the intent to kill her when she scratched his face, returned to his truck to retrieve the tool, prevented the security door into the parking garage from locking behind him, retrieved the tool from his truck, reentered the garage, and stabbed her repeatedly in the chest, back, neck, and face. The autopsy also revealed that defendant had strangled Salguero at some point before her death, but defendant denied doing so. A jury convicted defendant of second degree murder and found that he used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of the murder (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to 16 years to life in prison.
Defendant filed a timely appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On July 15, 2011, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

Defendant and appellant Blair Mitchell appeals from the judgment entered after he entered a guilty plea to robbery and burglary. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On June 28, 2011, we notified defendant of his counsel's brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Julio Rasgado appeals from a judgment entered upon a plea of no contest to attempted murder and robbery. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On May 26, 2011, we notified defendant of his counsel's brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. Upon reviewing the entire record, we have determined that although defendant has appealed from a judgment entered upon a plea agreement, he has not satisfied the prerequisites to such an appeal. We thus dismiss the appeal.

Defendants Jose Roberto Diaz and Gary Velasco Lopez appeal from their convictions of attempted second degree robbery.[1]
We appointed counsel to represent appellants in this matter. After examining the record counsel for both defendants filed a â€

Plaintiff and appellant Randall St. Aubyn appeals from a summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 437(c), in favor of defendants and respondents Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., Jan Thorton, and Julie Marnell, on plaintiff's claim that defendants failed to disclose to plaintiff a geological report and the distressed conditions of the hillside slope before plaintiff purchased the subject property. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment concluding that plaintiff's lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.

A modification decision.

Susan Williams, Nicholle Mortensen, and Julie Done filed this class action against L.A. Fitness International, LLC (L.A. Fitness), on behalf of former and current members of its fitness clubs, claiming L.A. Fitness wrongfully required 20 or 30 days' notice (depending on the contract) to cancel automatic payments for its monthly memberships. The parties reached a class settlement after mediation. The trial court conditionally certified the settlement class and preliminarily approved the settlement, and notice was given to over a million class members. Class member Anand L. Daniell objected to the settlement. The trial court approved the class settlement.
Daniell appeals from the order approving the settlement and the resulting judgment, contending the trial court abused its discretion when it found that class representatives Susan Williams and Julie Done adequately represented the class. Daniell contends the litigation was â€

An operator seeking to open a charter school must submit a petition to a school trustee board. The petition must be supported by signatures of specified individuals. (Ed. Code,[1] § 47605, subd. (a).) If an operator seeks to establish a charter school, there are two ways to comply with the petition signature requirement. The first method is to submit a petition bearing the signatures of parents or guardians of pupils equaling at least one-half of the number of students who will attend the first year the new charter school operates. (§ 47605, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The second way to comply with this requirement is to submit the signatures of teachers equaling the one-half the number it is estimated will be employed at the new charter school during its first year of operation. (§ 47605, subd. (a)(1)(B).) When a conversion of an existing campus is proposed by the charter school operator, the petition signature rule is different--only teacher signatures may be used. Section 47605, subdivision (a)(2) requires the petition be supported by the signatures of 50 percent of the permanent status teachers currently employed by the school to be converted. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that when a campus is to be opened on a new site, the charter school operator must comply with the two possible signature requirements in section 47605, subdivision (a)(1).
Plaintiffs, United Teachers of Los Angeles and several individual teachers, appeal from a judgment denying their first amended mandate petition (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) and declaratory and injunctive relief claims. Plaintiffs challenge the actions of defendants, Los Angeles Unified School District (the district) and former Superintendent Ramon Cortines, in opening four new charter schools to relieve overcrowded schools. Defendants argue the district â€

Appellants Alex Vincent Bracamonte (Bracamonte) and Raul Garcia Vasquez (Vasquez) were convicted of the murder of Jose Jesus â€