CA Unpub Decisions

J.L. had a restraining order against appellant, Michael L. Reid, the father of her son. On May 19, 2008, Reid left several messages on J.L.s mothers cell phone. During one message, Reid stated that J.L. was messing with his son and his life, and he was going to do something about it. Sheriff deputies responded to a call from J.L that Reid violated a restraining order and arrested Reid a short time later at a restaurant. The arresting officers found a small saw with a wooden handle in a backpack Reid was carrying.

An information charged Jamal Tyron Rhone with murder, in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1). It further alleged, under subdivision (a)(17) of section 190.2, the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery. Count 2 alleged second degree attempted robbery, and counts 3 and 4 alleged second degree robbery. As to each count it was alleged Rhone personally discharged a firearm pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The information also alleged Rhone was at least 16 years old at the time of his crimes (Welf. & Inst. Code, 707), and he committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). A jury convicted Rhone of all the charged offenses and found all of the special allegations to be true. The trial court sentenced Rhone to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole consecutive to a determinate sentence term of 43 years and four months. Rhone filed a timely notice of appeal.
Rhone claims the court erred by allowing the prosecution to exclude African-Americans from the jury and by allowing his custodial statements to be admitted. Finding neither contention has merit, Court affirm the judgment.

On December 15, 2006, Hui Zheng, who lived at 1090 Robbia Drive in Sunnyvale, left her home between 6 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. At that time, the front door was locked and the master bedroom window was closed. When she returned, the house was a mess, the front door was unlocked, and the master bedroom window and screen had been removed. Only expensive jewelry was missing. A diamond bracelet, a black and white pearl necklace, an enamel flower-design bracelet, a diamond and pearl pendant, white pearl drop earrings, black pearl earrings and necklace, and gray pearl earrings were recovered by the police. None of her jade jewelry was recovered. No electronic equipment, including a new iPod, had been taken. A neighbors security camera caught an SUV, which was the same make, model, and color as defendants SUV, drive twice on Robbia Drive around the time of the burglary.

This is defendant Charles Shihli Wangs third appeal arising out of the same conviction. Defendant was convicted in a court trial of one count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)). In September 2006, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years on various terms and conditions, including that he (1) serve 120 days in jail; (2) perform 100 hours of uncompensated community service; (3) complete a 16-week parenting course; (4) complete a 52-week domestic violence counseling program; and (5) submit his person, residence, vehicle and property to warrantless search at any time by a peace officer. The court also ordered defendant to pay a probation supervision fee of not more than $64 per month.

In June 2008, defendant Demar Winston Cannon was convicted after jury trial of subornation of perjury by declaration (Pen. Code, 127). The jury found that defendant had willfully procured F., who was almost 13 years old at the time, to commit perjury by making a false statement in a declaration concerning whether she had been molested by Brian Allen. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in prison.
As background, defendants father used to be married to the mother of Allen. Allen is married to the mother of F. In a criminal trial against Allen in 2005, F. testified about incidents during which Allen molested her. Allen was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts on F. and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Defendant had contact with F. after Allens trial, and on June 30, 2006, F. signed a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that Allen was innocent, her testimony came about because of pressure from her grandmother, Allen never molested her, and the charges against him were false. Allens attorney thereafter filed F.s declaration in connection with habeas proceedings pertaining to Allen, but Allen ultimately abandoned his attempt to seek habeas relief.

Minh Choung Chau, a 44-year-old man with no criminal history, shot Anthony Le seven times following an argument and fight over a dog. Le survived and identified Chau as the shooter. The information charged Chau with attempted murder (count 1), assault with a semi-automatic firearm (count 2), and burglary (count 3). As to count 1, it alleged that Chau personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. As to all counts, the information alleged that Chau personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense and personally inflicted great bodily injury.
Chau rejected the district attorney's offer of a five year stipulated sentence and proceeded to trial. The jury convicted him on all counts and found true the special allegations. The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life with the possibility of parole plus an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. (Pen. Code, 187 subd. (a), 189, 664, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d); undesignated statutory references are to this code.)

A jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 and found that he personally used a firearm within the meaning of sections 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1) and 12022.53, subdivision (b). Defendant contends on appeal that substantial evidence does not support the firearm enhancement. The record supports the jurys verdict that defendant personally used a firearm and Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant pleaded no contest to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon and a gang enhancement allegation after participating in a brawl. Defendant argues the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence during the contested sentencing hearing and in denying probation. Court affirm.

Appellant D.C. appeals a juvenile court order vacating his dependency status (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300) and declaring him a ward ( 602) after the court found he committed a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and a forcible lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1)). The court ordered appellant removed from his guardian and placed in a court-approved home or institution. Appellant contends the case plan is inadequate and the juvenile court erred in failing to appoint an educational representative. Court will affirm.

Antonio Barba appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first degree murder. Court reject his contentions that the prosecutor improperly challenged a prospective juror due to his race and that the court erred by admitting certain evidence on DNA findings and evidence on some of Barbas jailhouse conversations, and therefore affirm the judgment.

James Nickerson appeals from a criminal judgment of conviction and sentence on four counts after court trial. Nickerson contends, the People agree, and we now find that concurrent terms imposed on two assaults with a firearm should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654. The trial court is directed to issue a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the proper sentence; and adjusting his custody credits. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant and appellant Oscar Morales (Morales or seller) appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Demetria Barnes and Lakeisha Butler (plaintiffs or the buyers) following a court trial.The buyers prevailed in an action against Morales for breach of contract and fraud, based on his misrepresentation of the propertys rental income and his failure to disclose he made improvements to the property without the required permits.
Court perceive no error in the trial courts rulings and affirm the judgment.

On August 16, 2009, at approximately 4:30 in the morning, two police officers on an undercover investigation noticed Mariah H. (then 17 years old) and two other females standing on a sidewalk near Sepulveda Boulevard and Archwood Street, an area known to have a high rate of prostitution. Mariah was wearing a dress that was very short, and very tight, and appeared to be tracking cars. When one of the officers drove to the curb near where Mariah was standing, and lowered his window, she approached his car, and asked, Are you a cop? When he said, no, she turned around, bent over, and pulled up her skirt to show her bare buttocks, and said, Touch me. The officer declined, and drove away. A few minutes later, the second officer drove to the side of the street where Mariah was standing. When she approached his car, he asked if she was working. At that point, Mariah looked around, then pulled down the top portion of her dress to show her right breast, and asked him to touch her. When the officer asked Mariah if she was a police officer, she answered no, and said that, if she were a cop, she wouldnt be able to show [him] anything. Shortly thereafter, two other officers took Mariah into custody without incident.

. H., the conservator and mother of conservatee D. N., appeals from an order suspend[ing] her as conservator and appointing the Sacramento County Public Guardians Office (public guardian) successor conservator.

On appeal, L. H. and D. N. (who is a respondent) contend the court erred in suspending L. H. as conservator, trial counsel for D. N. did not have standing to bring the motion to suspend her, and in any event, he was ineffective for doing so against D. N.s wishes.
The public guardian responds the suspension order is not appealable and the appeal is moot. She further responds the court did not abuse its discretion by suspending L. H. as conservator.
As to the mootness issue, Court rejected an identical argument in an order filed September 17, 2009, which Court issued in response to the public guardians motion to dismiss filed approximately two months before she filed her respondents brief. Court need not address the issue again.