CA Unpub Decisions

Dennis James Bailey appeals from the revocation of his probation and the subsequent imposition of a sentence of five years in state prison. He contends that the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to hold a Marsden hearing on its own motion. For the following reasons, Court affirm.

A jury convicted appellant, Sandro Martinez, of one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). In a separate proceeding the court found true a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On September 4, 2009, the court sentenced Martinez to an aggregate nine year term: the aggravated term of eight years on the substantive offense and a one-year prior prison term enhancement.
On appeal, Martinez contends: 1) the court erred when it excluded certain evidence; and 2) he was denied his right to a jury trial on the prior prison term enhancement. Court affirm.

In 2007, appellant J.H.'s four children were placed in protective custody and a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed.[1] Appellant had supervised weekly visits with her oldest child, O.H., and her two youngest children. Appellant's second-born child, R.H., refused to visit her. Reunification services were terminated in June 2009. In September 2009, the court selected adoption as the permanent plan for the two youngest children, scheduled a section 366.26 hearing and ordered monthly visits with appellant. At a November 2, 2009, hearing, the court selected long-term foster care as the permanent plan for O.H. and R.H., scheduled a section 366.26 hearing and ordered monthly visits between appellant and O.H. Appellant contested the reduction in visits with the three children. This complaint was rejected after hearing on December 4, 2009.
Appellant argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by reducing the frequency of her visits with O.H. Court are not persuaded and will affirm.

In March 2000 the parties stipulated that appellant, Tommy Lewis Ward, was insane when he committed three counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) & 664[1]) and entered verdicts consistent with that stipulation. Appellant had been found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), the appellant's third strike. The trial court sentenced appellant to the state mental hospital for up to 125 years to life, and to a prison term of 25 years to life. Appellant's direct appeal to this court challenging his three strikes sentence was affirmed on October 29, 2002. Appellant's petition for review by the California Supreme Court was rejected in January 2003.

Defendants Technical Building Services, LA (TBS) and its owner, Stephen Carter, appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs Lum Air Mechanical, Inc. (Lum Air), and its owner, Dirk Griffin. Defendants challenge the jury verdict against Carter for conversion and the $410,000 general damages award against him. They complain the special verdict form wrongly allowed the jury to find Carter personally liable for converting customer accounts that TBS had agreed to assign to Lum Air -- although the complaint alleged only that Carter had converted tools and equipment. Defendants also maintain that the damages award was neither anticipated by the complaint nor supported by the evidence. Court affirm.

Richard Melim, a former employee of the City of Cypress (Cypress) involved in a dispute concerning unemployment benefits, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of administrative mandamus. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) Because there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the trial court's judgment, Court affirm.

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a parole search of a residence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5),[1] defendant Hector Gonzalez, Jr., entered into a negotiated plea agreement whereby he pleaded guilty to maintaining a place for unlawful activities involving controlled substances (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366), unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1)), and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to two years in prison with 770 days custody credits, and ordered him to report to parole within three days of his release. On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress because there was no objective evidence that he lived at the searched residence, and because the search was arbitrary and harassing. As we find that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, Court affirm the judgment.

After her Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence was denied,[1] defendant Cookie Stevenson pleaded no contest to one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and to one count of possession of personal identifying information with intent to defraud. (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(1).) In exchange for her no contest pleas, the court promised defendant that she would be placed on formal probation for three years but would have to serve a 90 day county jail sentence. However, she would be eligible for all programs including the electronic monitoring program (EMP).
On November 5, 2009, the court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on probation for three years and ordered her to serve 90 days in county jail.[2] The court imposed various fines and fees.
On January 4, 2010, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Counsel did not seek a certificate of probable cause.

Defendant Ramon Alejandre, Jr., appeals from his conviction of, among other crimes, first degree murder with an enhancement for benefiting a criminal street gang. He raises numerous issues on appeal, including several that arise out of the testimony of the prosecution's expert witness on gang activity. We conclude that this testimony was properly admitted and that defendant's other arguments on appeal are also without merit. Court shall therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant M.P. appeals from the Sonoma County Juvenile Court's dispositional order committing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Division of Juvenile Facilities. M.P. contends his commitment to DJJ violated the statutory scheme regulating a minor's eligibility for DJJ commitment, and lacked the support of sufficient evidence that he would probably benefit from the DJJ commitment. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the dispositional order in this case must be reversed.

Edson Camacho appeals from a default judgment and an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. He contends the judgment is void because it awards an amount of damages not specifically requested in the complaint. Court will reverse the order denying his motion to vacate the judgment.

This is the second appeal brought by Jacqueline King in this case. In King v. Law Offices of Sussman & Ziskin (Jan. 17, 2008, A116868) [nonpub. opn.] we affirmed an order striking King's cross-complaint against the attorneys for Terri Nielsen, the respondent in this appeal. King now appeals from an order designating her a vexatious litigant and a default judgment and fee award entered on Nielsen's cross-complaint. Court find no error and affirm.

Defendant Wayne Mobley appeals from his conviction of second degree robbery and resulting 35-year-to-life sentence predicated on 14 prior convictions. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude identification evidence assertedly based on unduly suggestive field identifications, and in instructing on reasonable doubt using CALCRIM No. 220. Neither contention has merit and Court shall therefore affirm.

This is an appeal from final judgment following the conviction of defendant Cornell James for misdemeanor elder abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)). Court affirm.