CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal arises out of the juvenile court's finding that Jose Z. committed pimping, criminal threats, kidnapping and falsely representing himself to a peace officer. It proceeds in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

Alton Mixon (Mixon) appeals a judgment following his jury conviction of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))[1] with a true finding he personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). On appeal, he contends: (1) the trial court's judicial misconduct in questioning him at trial violated his constitutional right to due process of law; and (2) the imposition of a section 12022.53, subdivision (d), 25-year-to-life enhancement to his murder conviction violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

This appeal arises out of the juvenile court's finding that Jose Z. committed pimping, criminal threats, kidnapping and falsely representing himself to a peace officer. It proceeds in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

John Stewart appeals from a judgment convicting him of battery by a prisoner. He argues the judgment must be reversed because: (1) the trial court violated his constitutional right to a jury determination on each element of the offense by taking judicial notice of the order confining him to prison; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of a confinement order; and (3) the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault. Court reject these contentions of reversible error and affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

After a bench trial, the trial court found Ian Damian Wisdom guilty of torture (Pen. Code, § 206)[1] (count 2); assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3); assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) (counts 4 and 31); false imprisonment by violence, menace, fraud, or deceit (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)) (counts 5 and 33); making a criminal threat (§ 422) (count 6); forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)) (counts 7, 9, and 11); rape by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)) (counts 17 and 23); forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) (counts 27 and 29); assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220, subd. (a)) (count 32); sexual battery by restraint (§ 243.4, subd. (a)) (count 34); and possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) (count 35). The court also found true numerous enhancement allegations pertaining to the possession and use of weapons, and the infliction of great bodily injury. The court found that Wisdom committed several of the sex offenses under circumstances enumerated in the One Strike law (§ 667.61), and that Wisdom had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, 1192.7, subd. (c)) and a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12). The court sentenced Wisdom to a total aggregate term of 410 years to life in prison. On appeal, Wisdom's sole claim is that the trial court erred in failing to stay execution of the sentences on count 6 (making a criminal threat) (§ 422) and count 33 (false imprisonment by violence, menace, fraud, or deceit) (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)), pursuant to section 654. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Michael Rene Gonzales appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury convicted him of first degree murder. According to Gonzales, the murder was senseless and random. He contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the killing was done deliberately and with premeditation, and requests that this court reduce his conviction to second degree murder.
Court conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the jury's determination that Gonzales is guilty of first degree murder. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

A jury found Michael George St. Martin to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (the Act). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)[1] The superior court recommitted him to the Department of Mental Health (Department) for an indeterminate term.
St. Martin appeals, contending his recommitment is unlawful and violates his due process rights because the mental health evaluations used to initiate this case were based on a standardized assessment protocol (protocol) since determined to contain underground regulations.[2] Alternatively, he contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a writ petition challenging the superior court's denial of his motion to dismiss this case because of the faulty evaluations.
In addition, St. Martin contends the Act violates the state and federal equal protection clauses, and we must reverse and remand this case to the superior court for further proceedings in light of the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 (McKee). Solely for purposes of preserving his right to later federal court review, St. Martin also contends the Act violates the federal constitution's due process, ex post facto, and double jeopardy clauses.
We reverse the superior court's judgment as to the McKee equal protection claim and remand the matter to the superior court with directions to suspend further proceedings until the McKee case is finally resolved, and then to conduct further proceedings consistent with the final resolution. In all other respects, Court affirm the superior court's judgment.

Plaintiff James Moore injured his back while working as an investigator for defendants California Surety Investigations, Inc. (CSI) and Two Jinn, Inc. (TJ) (together Employer). On August 17, 2007, Moore filed a grievance against Employer alleging his supervisor had spread rumors in the workplace that defamed Moore and, as a result of these defamations, Moore's requests for a "light duty" or modified position to accommodate his physical limitations had been ignored.
Moore subsequently filed this action alleging numerous claims against Employer. On appeal, however, Moore challenges the judgment as to only two of those claims: a disability discrimination claim based on Employer's alleged failure to provide Moore with reasonable accommodations; and a claim alleging Employer failed to engage in the interactive process as required by Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n). Moore also challenges the award of attorney fees and costs ordered as a sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420.

Police received a report that defendant Gary Lee Watkins, the owner of a nursery business, had a rifle and had threatened to go to another nursery and kill everyone inside. When officers went to his residence, defendant fled but was detained near his office. A shotgun â€

Arlie Lopez Ortiz appeals a judgment of conviction of failing to register, with a finding that he suffered a prior serious felony strike conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 290, subd. (b), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)[1] We appointed counsel to represent him in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) On December 9, 2010, we advised Ortiz that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received a response from him contending that at the time he entered his plea, the trial court promised him a grant of probation with a condition of confinement in the county jail for 180 days. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Ortiz's contention.

Derral Wayne Blackston appeals his judgment of conviction of unauthorized driving a vehicle and possession of cocaine base. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On September 24, 2010, 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. Court have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

H.M. appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders in the dependency proceeding concerning his son Jose and his daughter Dulce. Court affirm.