CA Unpub Decisions

Eric Paul Miller appeals his conviction by jury of four robberies and one kidnapping to commit another crime (robbery). (Pen. Code, 211, 209, subd. (b)(1).)[1] The jury acquitted him of attempted theft from an elder or dependent adult, and unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle. ( 368, subd. (d)/664; Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) After finding that the prior serious felony, prior strike conviction, and prior prison term allegations were true, the court sentenced appellant to state prison for 10 years, plus 19 years to life. ( 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 1107.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to strike his prior serious felony conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant William J. Jones of assault with a firearm and carjacking (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2) & 215, subd. (a)),[1] and found true allegations that he personally used a firearm ( 12022.5 & 12022.53, subd. (b)). The jury acquitted defendant of attempted kidnapping ( 664/207, subd. (a)). It deadlocked on the charge of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder ( 664/187), and the trial court declared a mistrial on that count. Later, defendant pled no contest to attempted murder (unpremeditated) and admitted using a firearm in the crime ( 12022.53, subd. (c)). The court sentenced him to a total term of 25 years in state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction. His sole contention is that the court erred in imposing a $20 DNA penalty assessment. Respondent concedes the issue, and Court agree.

Defendant John Maestaz shot and killed Marcus Cardenas. His defense was that he justifiably did so in self-defense and defense of another. He was charged with murder but convicted only of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 21 years in state prison. Maestaz contends the trial court gave an improper instruction on justifiable homicide, erred in refusing to strike allegations regarding a prior conviction, and abused its discretion in sentencing. Court agree the court gave an improper instruction but conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no abuse of discretion in the courts refusal to strike allegations or its other sentencing deliberations. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Appellant Sean William Cunningham appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of count 1, second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211);[1] count 4, second degree robbery ( 211); count 5, second degree robbery ( 211); count 6, second degree robbery ( 211); and count 8, second degree robbery ( 211). As to each count, the jury found true that appellant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The jury also found true the allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon Seidur Rahman within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). Appellant admitted and the trial court found true that he had suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and a prior serious conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1).

Mother Izabella R. appeals from the juvenile courts finding that her infant son, H., is subject to dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). She contends that although H. suffered a subdural hematoma while under her and the fathers care, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the injury was caused by their neglect. Court disagree, and affirm the juvenile courts order.

Mother Izabella R. appeals from the juvenile courts finding that her infant son, H., is subject to dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). She contends that although H. suffered a subdural hematoma while under her and the fathers care, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the injury was caused by their neglect. Court disagree, and affirm the juvenile courts order.

Appellant Ronald A. (father) appeals from the juvenile dependency courts denial of his two petitions for modification made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Father contends the juvenile court denied him due process by refusing to allow him to present live testimony and certain documentary evidence in support of his petitions. Court find no denial of due process and affirm.

A jury convicted appellant Lindolfo Thibes (appellant) of five counts of forcible sodomy (counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 15; Pen. Code, 286),[1] five counts of forcible oral copulation (counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 16; 288a), and five acts of forcible rape (counts 13, 14, 17, 18, 19; 261).[2] The jury also found true the allegation that appellant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim as to counts 13, 18, and 19. ( 667.61, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced appellant to 109 years to life in state prison.

Karel Douglas Vaughan, M.D., Inc., and Karel Douglas Vaughan (KDV and Vaughan, or collectively, appellants) appeal from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration after Valentina Hansen filed a lawsuit raising various claims relating to her employment with them. Appellants contend that the court erred by denying their motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the agreement was unconscionable and they did not timely exercise their arbitration rights. Court affirm.

Dennis Smith appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial at which he was determined to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, 2960 et seq.) Appellant contends that the commitment offense, battery against a custodial officer ( 243.1), did not involve the use of force or violence, and the evidence does not support the finding that appellant, by reason of his severe mental disorder, poses a substantial danger to others. ( 2962, subd. (d)(1).) Court affirm.

Ignacio Carpio Perez appeals his conviction by plea to transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)), entered after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5). Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Jasmine L. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights as to the children Evelyn C., N.C. and G.C. Though she did not raise this issue below, she contends that she met her burden to establish an exception to termination codified in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). Court affirm.

Petitioner, Joyce Ann Pettis, pleaded guilty to second degree murder on March 17, 1987. She had hired a man to kill her husband. At a hearing held on July 31, 2008, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) denied Pettiss parole. On September 17, 2009, Pettis filed in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus. A review of the record before us indicates Pettis has served more than the requisite term in prison and poses no danger to society. Accordingly, Court order that her petition be granted.

Defendant Michael Emmett Hurlburt appeals from an order of the Siskiyou County Superior Court denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The basis for the petition was an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation relating to his plea agreement by his trial counsel.