CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Abdullah Naim Hafiz of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459, 460.) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subds. (b), (e)(2)(A)), two prior serious felony convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (a)(1)), and had served four prior prison terms (Pen. Code,
667.5. subd. (b)). It struck one of the prior convictions (Pen. Code, 1385) and sentenced defendant to 14 years in prison, consisting of the low term of two years for the burglary conviction, doubled to four years for the prior strike conviction, and two consecutive five-year terms for the prior serious felony convictions; sentence on the remaining enhancement allegations was stayed.
Defendant contends (1) his statements to police were involuntary and obtained in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694] (Miranda), (2) the court erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions, certified records to prove a prior conviction, and an outstanding arrest warrant, (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to prove his burglary conviction and the allegations of prior convictions. Finding no error, Court need not address defendants claim of cumulative prejudice and affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

On appeal, Craig asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the first degree murder conviction under a natural and probable consequences theory or under a felony-murder theory. Specifically, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence corroborating the accomplices (Guzmans) testimony. He asserts the evidence was also insufficient to support the conspiracy to commit felony assault conviction. In addition, Craig argues it was reversible error for the trial court to prevent a witness from being recalled by the defense and also by excluding a note written by the murder victim. Court conclude none of his contentions have merit, and Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Christian Alfonso Rodriguez of second degree robbery. The court sentenced him to three years probation. One of the terms and conditions of his probation was 365 days in Orange County jail. Defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Rosemary Belle Greenlaw was charged with three felonies: one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, 484, 487, subd. (a), count 1) and two counts of recording a false instrument (id., 115, counts 2 & 3). The charges arose from actions defendant took in connection with the homeowners association (HOA) that governed the townhome complex where she lived. Defendant allegedly made an unauthorized withdrawal from the HOA checking account at Bank of America. She also filed statements of information with the Secretary of State, representing herself as the secretary and chief financial officer of the HOA, when, according to the minutes of HOA meetings, she did not hold those positions.
The jury acquitted defendant of the theft charge but found her guilty of the two false instrument offenses. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, imposed a fine of $5,000, and placed defendant on probation for three years. The trial court later imposed a victim restitution order, requiring defendant to pay restitution to the HOA in the amount of the allegedly unauthorized withdrawal.

Defendant Pablo Albanez Castaneda was convicted after jury trial of robbery (Pen. Code, 211), burglary ( 459), receiving stolen property ( 496), and possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the robbery ( 12022.53, subd. (b)), that he had a prior serious felony conviction that also qualified as a strike ( 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and that he had served two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)(1)). The court denied defendants motion for a new trial and his Romero motion,[2] and sentenced him to 24 years eight months in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a continuance, (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, (3) he was denied his right to a speedy trial, (4) the evidence is insufficient to support his burglary conviction, (5) the prosecution failed to show the chain of custody of the DNA swab used by a lab for DNA tests, (6) the court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony from a criminalist, (7) a stayed term for a section 12022.5 enhancement must be stricken, and (8) the judgment must be reversed due to cumulative error.Court find that the court erred in staying a section 12022.5 enhancement, but the abstract of judgment does not include a notation for that stayed sentence, so no modification is required. As Court find no other error requiring reversal, Court will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Diego Legaspi appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury convicted him of one count of transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a), a felony), one count of possession of cocaine base (id., 11350, subd. (a), a felony), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia (id., 11364, a misd.). During trial, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, 14601.2, subd. (a), a misd.).
In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true enhancement allegations that defendant had one prior conviction for transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd (a)), that defendant had one prior conviction that qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes Law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12); and that defendant had served a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). On the prosecutions motion, the court dismissed allegations that defendant had suffered two other prior prison terms.

Defendant Cain Burks pleaded no contest to two counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459-460, subd. (b)) and two counts of petty theft with a theft prior ( 666). Defendant admitted three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). Prior to sentencing, the trial court heard and denied defendants motion to withdraw his plea. The court then sentenced defendant to four years in prison. On appeal, defendant challenges the courts denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. Court will affirm the judgment.

After the trial court found that defendant Jess Hernandez had violated his probation, the court revoked defendants probation and sentenced him to three years in prison with 415 days custody credits. Defendant appeals, contending that the court failed to give him written notice of the alleged probation violations, and failed to provide a written order as to the evidence it relied upon and the specific reasons for revoking his probation; that the evidence does not support a finding that he volitionally failed to comply with the terms of his probation; and that the court erred by admitting documents containing multiple layers of hearsay, which rendered the documents unreliable. Court disagree with all these contentions and, therefore, will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Louis Fernando Ortiz was charged by felony complaint with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211-212.5, subd. (c)). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to the robbery charge and admitted that he committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions. Among other things, the trial court ordered defendant (1) to submit to chemical testing as directed by the probation officer, (2) to abstain from the use of drugs and alcohol and to stay away from places where alcohol is the chief item of sale, (3) to submit to an official search of his personal property at any time, and (4) to refrain from appearing at court proceedings except in limited circumstances. On appeal, defendant contends that these conditions are invalid and must be stricken from the probation order. Court agree that the chemical testing and alcohol conditions must be stricken. Additionally, Court modify the court appearance condition to comply with constitutional standards. Court will affirm the judgment as so modified.

M.C. (mother) and M.S. (father) appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) for their daughters J.S. and A.S. and their son M.S. Mother and father (collectively, parents) argue that the juvenile court erred in terminating parental rights because the case comes within the exceptions to termination described by section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) and (v). Parents also argue that the court erred in summarily denying two section 388 motions filed by fathers relatives and that the notice given pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) was inadequate. Court reject parents substantive arguments but agree that the ICWA notice was deficient. Court shall conditionally reverse the order to allow the juvenile court to correct the noticing error.

Defendant and appellant, Harold P. Reiland, Jr. (defendant), appearing in propria persona, appeals the judgment after a bench trial entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Jose Alberto Limon (plaintiff) in the amount of $73,000 plus costs of suit on his complaint for monies owed on an oral construction contract. Defendant attacks the judgment on multiple grounds, none of which merit reversal. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Helene M. Biggane appeals after pleading guilty to furnishing a house for use in a large-scale indoor marijuana growing operation. (Health & Saf. Code, 11366.5, subd. (a).) The court granted her three years probation, but defendant now challenges numerous conditions of probation, as well as the amount of the fine imposed. Several of defendants challenges to various conditions of probation were forfeited by failure to assert them at sentencing. Court will first discuss the conditions as to which there was no forfeiture.Court will then entertain facial constitutional challenges to the remaining conditions to the extent such review is authorized. Court ultimately reject all of defendants challenges, and affirm.

This appeal comes to us following revocation of defendants probation and imposition upon him of a sentence of 16 months in state prison. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.