CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant David Ford appeals a judgment entered following his guilty plea to one count of battery by a prisoner on a non-prisoner (Pen. Code, § 4501.5). On appeal, defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his Pitchess motion to discover the personnel records of the correctional officers involved in the altercation that gave rise to the charges.

Defendant Jose Eduijes Mojia Torres appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of six counts of unlawful intercourse by a person over the age of 21 with a person under the age of 16 (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d))[1] and six counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a 14 year old (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)). He received an aggregate state prison term of six years.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him probation. The parties also ask that we correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the fines and fees actually imposed by the trial court at sentencing, and to add the mandatory court security fee and criminal conviction assessment.
Court find the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant probation. Court shall direct the court to amend the abstract of judgment and, as amended, shall affirm the judgment.

On May 3, 2009, Stockton Police Sergeant Kenneth Robinson responded to a family disturbance involving defendant Sydney Paul Fernandez and his three sisters. Driving off in a green Mustang, defendant yelled, â€

Plaintiffs Susan Laswell and Lorraine Buchla are the sisters of defendant Mary Ellen Laswell. As the health of their mother, Virginia Laswell, deteriorated, the disputes between the siblings increased, culminating in a civil harassment restraining order against Mary Ellen. On appeal, Mary Ellen contends that there was no basis for this order and that the order infringes on her constitutional rights. We disagree and affirm.
Facts and Proceedings
Virginia Laswell had three adult daughters: plaintiffs Susan and Lorraine, and defendant Mary Ellen. Virginia suffered from dementia and, according to her doctors, was incompetent to make her own decisions.

In December 2008, Hazel Costa left her Ford Expedition idling in the driveway and entered her home. The truck was gone when she returned. She noticed that an â€

In this probation revocation case, the trial court found defendant Eric Gordon Randall violated the terms of his probation by willfully disobeying a lawfully issued protective order that directed him not to strike or assault his former girlfriend. On appeal, defendant contends the protective order was not lawfully issued because the court that issued it had no authority to do so under Penal Code[1] section 1203.097. We conclude that because the court had authority to issue the order under section 1203.1, it was lawfully issued. Accordingly, we reject defendant's challenge to the revocation of his probation and his request that we strike the protective order. We will, however, remand the case to the trial court to grant defendant presentence custody credits pursuant to the recent amendments to section 4019, effective January 25, 2010.

The minor, K. S., appeals from a probation condition imposed following his adjudication for receiving a stolen vehicle. He contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a gang probation condition where, as here, there is nothing in his history which suggests he has ever been involved in gang-related conduct or that this offense was in any way gang related. We find the court failed to exercise its discretion in imposing the probation condition and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A jury found defendant Issac Samuel Brilingtton guilty of second degree robbery and criminal threats.
The victim, a college student, testified that in 2008 he made money by buying electronic game items from eBay and craigslist and bundling and reselling them. In April 2008, he contacted defendant's brother, a minor, through craigslist. They met at defendant's house to trade an Xbox 360 game system for a PlayStation 3 game system.

On October 11, 2006, while on patrol as a gunner on an elevated platform, New Folsom State Prison Correctional Officer Arnoldo Hernandez saw three Hispanic inmates search through a laundry bag on a cart and then wheel the cart to a vehicle sally port. One inmate took the bag from the cart and he and the other two inmates sat down next to a wall. Other inmates approached and were given items of clothing. Officer Hernandez was suspicious and advised the yard officer.
An investigation squad went to the yard and discovered numerous weapons in plain sight on some metal tables. The inmates were ordered to the ground and they complied. Defendant was one of the inmates on the ground. The inmates were flex cuffed.
During a patsearch, Correctional Officer Keith Logan rolled defendant over and asked if he had any weapons in his pockets. Officer Logan as well as Correctional Sergeant Wesley Lewis, who stood two feet away, heard defendant say he had weapons. Officer Logan pulled eight sharpened weapons from defendant's pockets. Officer Logan forgot to write in his report about hearing defendant admit to having the weapons but Officer Logan testified at the preliminary hearing that defendant had so admitted.
Correctional Officer Yvonne Vasquez prepared a diagram with the names of some of the inmates on the yard. She recorded only 21 names out of the 100 inmates on the yard because the inmates were being escorted off the yard as she prepared her diagram. Defendant's name was not on the diagram.

Robert Eugene Washington appeals his conviction for assault, contending that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to request an alibi instruction and (2) failing to object to the prosecutor's argument suggesting the defense had the burden of proving the alibi. In addition, Washington contends he is entitled to three more days of presentence custody credits.

On April 14, 2009, a jury convicted appellant, Ruben Manuel Cordero, Jr., of misdemeanor battery. (Pen. Code, § 242.) After Cordero waived time for sentencing, the court placed him on conditional probation for three years and ordered him to serve 180 days local time.
On appeal, Cordero contends that one of the conditions of his probation is constitutionally vague and violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. court agree the condition at issue is vague and Court will strike it. In all other respects, Court will affirm.

Appellant, Anthony Delgado Moreno, appeals from a jury conviction of attempted burglary, a felony (Penal Code, §§ 664/459, count one),[1] and impersonation of a police officer, a misdemeanor (§ 538d, subd. (b)(2), count two). The court found, by that conviction, Moreno had violated a prior three-year probation.[2] The court terminated probation and imposed a five-year term for the prior convictions. The court imposed a concurrent one-year term on the attempted burglary count, and a three-year term on the impersonation of a police officer count.
On appeal, Moreno challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction on count two. Moreno also contends, and the People concede, the three-year prison on the impersonation count was unauthorized. We conclude there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict on impersonation of a police officer, and affirm the judgment. However, Court remand for resentencing on that offense.

Appellant, Anthony Delgado Moreno, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a plea of no contest to using false citizenship documents (Pen. Code, § 114, count one) and elder abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1), count two). The court placed Moreno on probation for three years and suspended imposition of sentence. Subsequently, the court found Moreno had violated his probation by committing the offenses of which he was convicted in case number VCF218924 (appeal number F057923). The court terminated probation and imposed a five-year term for the false document count and a concurrent five-year term for the elder abuse count. Moreno contends, and the People concede, the court imposed an unauthorized sentence on the elder abuse count. Court will find the error harmless under the circumstances and affirm the judgment, including the three-year concurrent sentence on count 2 as reflected in the abstract of judgment.

Defendants Joel C. Devenish, Joseph T. Kolano, Donald G. McDonald, Joaquin N. Silva, and Manuel Toledo appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court summarily adjudicated or dismissed all issues in plaintiff AMVETS, Department of California's claim for declaratory relief and plaintiff dismissed without prejudice the remaining causes of action. Defendants contend the court erred in finding they violated the Corporations Code in amending their Constitution because as the Board of Directors they had the authority to make that amendment without plaintiff's consent. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.