CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Defendant Bert Juarez appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of the attempted premeditated murder of Lily M.; assault with a firearm; and possession of a firearm by a felon.[1] He contends: (1) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter; (2) it was error to give CALJIC No. 1.22; (3) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury to view defendant's out-of-court statements with caution; (4) consecutive sentences for attempted murder and possession of a firearm were precluded by Penal Code section 654.[2] Defendant also contends, and the People concede, that the trial court miscalculated defendant's presentence custody credits by one day. We modify the judgment to reflect the correct number of presentence custody credits and affirm as so modified.

A modification decision.

An information filed December 29, 2008, charged appellant Marco Garcia in count 1 with grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1), and in count 2 with the unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The trial court heard appellant's discovery motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, seeking disclosure of items bearing on the issues of truth and veracity in the personnel record of the arresting police officers. The court granted the motion with respect to three items in the personnel record of one of the officers, while otherwise denying the motion.

R.V., the father of two children, appeals from the juvenile court adjudication of a dependency petition finding he placed his children at substantial risk of serious physical injury. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the adjudication and disposition granting legal and physical custody of the children to their mother and terminating jurisdiction pursuant to a family law order.

Marcos C., Sr. (Father) is the father of Marcos C., Jr. (Marcos), the subject of juvenile dependency proceedings. Father appeals from the dependency court's order that terminated his family reunification services even though services were continued for Marcos's mother, A.T. (Mother). Court find no error, and affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Petitioner is an inmate, incarcerated since May 1984, under an indeterminate sentence of 15 years to life, plus a concurrent term of 16 months, arising from his conviction for second degree murder and possession of a sawed-off shotgun and marijuana. Petitioner reached his minimum eligible parole date on March 7, 1993. At the time of his December 2008 parole-suitability hearing (his eleventh, since 1992), he had been incarcerated for almost 25 years.
Following his suitability hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings (the â€

Defendant was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 26 years to life. He appeals contending: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support either the premeditation finding or the murder conviction in general, (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct adequately on defendant's right to resist a felony and on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, (3) the trial court improperly gave consciousness of guilt instructions, and (4) defense counsel's failure to object to various arguments by the prosecutor amounted to ineffective assistance. court affirm the conviction.

A jury convicted defendant Zenith Gilliam of assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife, and found a great bodily injury allegation to be true. The jury deadlocked on an attempted murder count upon which the court declared a mistrial and later dismissed on the prosecutor's motion. The trial court found three strike priors and prior serious felony conviction allegations to be true.
After denying defendant's motion to dismiss the strike priors, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for 25 years to life plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement and five years for a prior serious felony conviction.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike the strike priors. We reject defendant's contention and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Joseph Douglas Willis of two separate street robberies, and found that he personally used a sawed-off shotgun in their commission. The court sentenced him to state prison.
On appeal, defendant raises only the issue of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Specifically, he asserts a violation of his right to due process of law because the prosecutor trivialized the nature of reasonable doubt, lowering the burden of proof for the prosecution. We affirm the judgment.

In May 2006 defendant Angel Hernandez Ramos pled no contest to spousal abuse. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) In exchange for his plea, defendant was sentenced to formal probation for three years.
In June 2009 defendant violated his probation by consuming alcohol and was sentenced to the middle term of three years in state prison for the underlying conviction. He was awarded 149 days' custody credit and 74 days' conduct credit pursuant to Penal Code section 4019 (hereafter section 4019). The court subsequently filed an amended abstract of judgment reflecting 177 days' custody credit and 88 days' conduct credit.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the January 2010 amendments to section 4019 apply retroactively to his pending appeal, entitling him to additional presentence conduct credits.[1] We agree and shall modify the judgment accordingly.
The amendments to section 4019 apply to all appeals, including defendant's, pending as of January 25, 2010. (See In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745 [amendment to statute lessening punishment for crime applies â€

The Attorney General concedes both issues raised by the minor K.M. and argues that we should strike great bodily injury and weapons use enhancements with a corresponding reduction of his maximum confinement from eight years four months to four years four months. We agree the court erred by allowing the prosecution to amend the petition midway through the adjudication hearing and by imposing an enhancement for weapon use when the pleading charges defendant with an offense involving use of a weapon. The great bodily injury and personal weapon use enhancements are stricken.

Defendant Dock McNeely appeals the sentence imposed following his convictions for failing to register as a sex offender within five days of coming into a county and failing to register as a sex offender annually within five days of his birthday. On appeal, he contends counsel was ineffective in failing to make a Romero (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529-531 (Romero)) motion seeking dismissal of his prior strike conviction. Defendant also contends the abstract of judgment must be corrected to show the proper amount of credit for time served. We agree the abstract should be corrected, but do not agree that defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. We will order the abstract of judgment be corrected and otherwise affirm the judgment.
Facts and Proceedings