CA Unpub Decisions

Monte L. Hansen and Joseph Aldridge appeal from a judgment entered after a court trial. They contend the court erred in ruling that they failed to prove their breach of contract claim. They further contend that, rather than ruling against respondent on her cross-complaint for rescission, the court should have granted respondent rescission and required her to pay restitution to them. Court will affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

A jury convicted Alex Ochoa of two counts of felony vandalism committed for the benefit of a street gang, and one count of resisting an officer. Ochoa appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the vandalism that was the subject of each count caused more than $400 in damage, and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on the vandalism counts. Court affirm the judgment as modified and remand for resentencing.

A jury found defendant and appellant Adrian Barrera guilty of attempted second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211[1].) Defendant admitted that he suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in state prison and imposed, as relevant here, a $30 court security fee. (§ 1465.8.)
On appeal, defendant contends that his admission that he suffered the prior conviction was not voluntary and intelligent because it was taken without a proper advisement and waiver of his constitutional rights, and that the $30 court security fee was improper because the increase in the court security fee from $20 to $30 may not be imposed retroactively on offenses that were committed prior to the effective date of the legislation increasing the fee. Respondent notes that the trial court erred in imposing sentence on defendant's attempted second degree robbery conviction when it purported to impose a middle term of four years. We affirm defendant's conviction and the $30 court security fee. Defendant's admission of his prior conviction and his â€

A jury convicted Enrique Gonzalez of first degree murder, with findings that he personally discharged a firearm causing death, and that he committed the murder for the benefit a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 12022.53, subd. (d); 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) On appeal, Gonzalez argues the trial court committed reversible error in its instructions on the gang enhancement allegation. court affirm.

K.T., mother, appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her reunification services with her son, now nearly three-year-old K.G. Mother contends that the six months of reunification services to which she was entitled did not commence to run as long as either she or K.G.'s father, B.G., had custody of K.G. Mother further contends that the juvenile court applied the incorrect legal standard in terminating her reunification services. Court affirm.

In this marital dissolution proceeding, appellant Linda Boblitt (wife) claims numerous errors by the trial court. The vast majority of her claims of error, however, are not adequately developed and not properly supported by citations to the record on appeal or legal authority. To the extent wife's claims are not doomed by inadequate argument and/or insufficient citations, we nonetheless find them without merit. Accordingly, Court will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Robert Paul Snyder killed his live-in girlfriend, Barbara Knudsen. Convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to state prison for an indeterminate term of 45
years to life, he appeals. He contends the trial court erred
by (1) admitting evidence of his prior domestic violence,
(2) instructing the jury that there can be more than one cause of death, and (3) permitting rebuttal testimony of the victim's state of mind. He also contends that (4) the errors, even if individually harmless, are cumulatively prejudicial. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Eric Wayne Barnard of multiple counts of child molestation involving three victims, and the jury also convicted him of misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison. Defendant now asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of uncharged sexual conduct with one of the minors, because the uncharged conduct was cumulative and more prejudicial than probative. court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Kimberly Sue Sayre pled no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))[1] in September 2008. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on five years of formal probation. Defendant's probation was subsequently revoked in August 2009 and she was sentenced to the upper term of four years in state prison. At sentencing, the court imposed numerous fines and fees, including a $30 facilities fee pursuant to Government Code section 70373. The court also increased the previously imposed court security fee from $20 to $30, and defendant was awarded 504 days' custody credit, i.e., 336 days' actual custody credit and 168 days' conduct credit.
Defendant makes three claims on appeal. First, defendant contends the $30 facilities fee should be stricken. Second, she contends the court erred in increasing the previously imposed court security fee from $20 to $30 when her probation was revoked. Third, defendant contends she is entitled to additional conduct credit pursuant to the recent amendments to section 4019. court find each of defendant's claims to have merit.

J.L., father of the two children, J.L., Jr., and K.L., appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders which removed the children from his custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 361.) He contends there is no substantial evidence that the children were persons described by section 300 or that they were at substantial risk of harm in his care. Court shall affirm.

Appellant Joyce M. Mann appeals the trial court's order authorizing the conservator of her estate to sell her home. She contends her attorneys were ineffective and the conservator did not inspect the home or make the repairs to the home to eliminate the need for it to be sold. Court shall affirm.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.[1] Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On December 30, 2009, defendant Scott David Tucker threatened his girlfriend with a pistol during an argument. Defendant had been previously convicted of domestic violence and was not permitted to possess a firearm.
Defendant pled no contest to unlawful possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (c)(1)).[2] In exchange for his plea, five additional counts were dismissed, including a count for felony vandalism of a circuit box (§ 594, subd. (a)(2)), which was dismissed with a Harvey waiver.[3] It was also agreed that defendant would receive no state prison at the outset.
The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years with the condition he serve a year in county jail. He was ordered to pay various fines and fees, abstain from and test for alcohol consumption, and complete an anger management program. He was awarded 169 days of custody credit. (§ 4019.)
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

A jury convicted Andrew C. Henderson of three counts each of workers' compensation fraud (counts 1, 2, 6) and perjury (counts 3, 4, 5). Henderson appeals, claiming the evidence does not support his convictions. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.