CA Unpub Decisions

Edgar R. appeals from the judgment entered after the juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen.Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)[1] The court found true an allegation that the offense had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) (CT 1-3; RT 165-166) Appellant was committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a maximum of 3,285 days.
The issues on appeal concern appellant's claim of defense of another, which the juvenile court rejected. Appellant contends that (1) the court erroneously concluded that he did not have the right to assert the claim because he had "never disengaged from the fight" initiated by the person whom he allegedly was defending; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the court's finding that he had used excessive force; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct and violated due process by making an argument that was inconsistent with the People's position in another case. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Marcus Thomas appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for robbery and grand theft. Thomas was sentenced to a prison term of 40 years to life. He contends: (1) his conviction for grand theft must be stricken, because it is a lesser included offense of robbery; and (2) the trial court improperly imposed sentence enhancements and sentenced him under the Three Strikes law based on unpleaded prior convictions. We agree that the grand theft conviction must be reversed. In all other respects, Court affirm.

In this dependency appeal, Irene R. (mother) challenges the juvenile court's orders (1) continuing her son, Pedro M. (born September 2007), in suitable placement at a 12-month review hearing, and (2) sustaining the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition as to her other son, L.M. (born March 2009), and thereafter removing L. from mother's physical custody. Court find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's orders and affirm.

Appellant Eric Dshaun Jones appeals from a judgment entered after he pled nolo contendere to count 2, continuous sexual abuse of victim E.J., a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a))[1] and count 4, forcible rape of D.T. (§ 261, subd. (a)(2).) Appellant also admitted that he had suffered one prior felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) (the â€

Woody Duke, Chuck Steinmetz, and their wholly-owned corporations, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, appeal an order denying their motion for class certification. Plaintiffs operate rental car agencies under contracts with Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., or Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. (collectively, Avis/Budget).[1] The contracts characterize plaintiffs as independent contractors, but plaintiffs allege that they are employees with certain rights under California's wage and hour laws. The trial court concluded that common questions of fact did not predominate with respect to the determination whether plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors, and denied class certification.
Plaintiffs contend the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating the questions presented with respect to whether the class members were employees or independent contractors. Court conclude the trial court did not err, and therefore affirm.

Appellant William Blackwell appeals from his convictions of murder and attempted murder. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the two murder charges that arose from separate incidents. He also contends that the reading of preliminary hearing testimony deprived him of his constitutional right to confrontation and that an in camera hearing with only counsel present deprived him of his rights to confrontation, effective assistance of counsel, and an impartial jury. Finally, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of threats and violence against a witness. We find no prejudice from the joint trial and no confrontation violation, and appellant's remaining contentions have not been preserved for review. Court thus affirm the judgment.

C.C. (Mother) challenges an order of the Solano County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, entered August 13, 2010, in which the court set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26, to select a permanent plan for the minors D.J. (born November 2003), K.J. (born September 2005), and P.C. (born July 2009). She claims the juvenile court erred when it found that the Solano County Department of Child Welfare Services (Department) offered or provided her with reasonable services. As discussed below, we conclude the finding is supported by substantial evidence and deny the petition on the merits.

Michael Thomas (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of residential burglary (Pen. Code,[1] § 460) and found true an allegation that the residence was occupied by a non-accomplice at the time of the offense (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Appellant's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, Court conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and we affirm the judgment.

Appellant Regina Anne Hensley appeals from a court order terminating her probation as unsuccessful. Her court-appointed lawyer has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Defendant T.P. admitted possessing a knife on school grounds in violation of Penal Code section 626.10, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. The juvenile court placed him on probation in the custody of his great-grandparents. After he twice violated his probation, the juvenile court ordered him into out-of-home placement. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant's counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Court find no arguable issues and affirm.

At the commencement of a hearing on whether to revoke his probation, appellant Rahim Muhammad's counsel informed the court that his client â€

B.V., a minor, appeals from a dispositional order after the juvenile court sustained an allegation of fighting in a public place. He contends the court should have suppressed the victim's identification testimony because the field identification was impermissibly suggestive, and tainted the in-court identification. We agree the field identification procedures were poor, but, under the totality of the circumstances, we are not persuaded they affected the victim's in-court identification. Court therefore affirm the juvenile court's order.

Appellant Marcus Fayette was convicted by a jury of attempted murder (count 1), with sustained findings of firearm use and great bodily injury; assault with a semiautomatic firearm (counts 4-5), with sustained findings of great bodily injury; discharging a firearm with gross negligence (count 7); carrying a concealed firearm (count 8); and carrying a loaded firearm (count 9). All special allegations that appellant committed counts 1 through 7 for the benefit of and in association with a criminal street gang, were found untrue. The court declared a mistrial as to two additional counts of attempted murder (counts 2-3) and one additional count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count 6); the San Francisco District Attorney subsequently dismissed those counts. The court sentenced appellant to the lower term of five years on count 1, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the gun use enhancement.

Defendant Rogelio Guzman Gonzalez was accused of molesting his seven-year-old daughter, Jane Doe (J.D.), when she was taking a shower during an overnight visit with him. A jury convicted defendant of a lewd and lascivious act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); count 1), and of sexual penetration of a child under age 14 and more than 10 years younger than him (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (j); count 2), and found with respect to count 1 that he had substantial sexual conduct with the victim (Pen. Code, § 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)). He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, representing the upper term of eight years on count 1, and two years on count 2.
Defendant argues that: his statements to the police should have been excluded because they were obtained in violation of Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436); portions of the interrogation should, for other reasons, have been excluded or redacted; he was punished for exercising his right to a jury trial; and he was improperly given the aggravated term on count 1, and consecutive sentences on the counts. Court conclude that these arguments lack merit, and affirm the judgment.