CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Curtis Atkinson entered a plea of no contest to insurance fraud. His ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. Pursuant to the latter, we provide the following summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court. According to the probation reports summary of the factual basis for the plea, defendant injured his wrist in 2005 and claimed that he was unable to work because he could not lift anything heavier than his shoe or the side of his pants. As a result, he received workers compensation benefits. In 2007, the insurance company determined that he was operating a thrift store with his mother, and surveillance footage showed that he was able to use his hand for lifting and pushing. In all, the insurance company had paid $25,300 (rounded) to defendant in fraudulent benefits.

In February 2009, defendant Willie Dabney entered someones home through a window, ransacked the home, and stole a television (case No. SF111383A). That same month, defendant pried open the window of a second victim, Fredrick M., in order to gain entry into Fredricks home and steal his possessions (case No. SF111383A). The following month, defendant pried open a window in the home of his third victim, Wayne U., went inside, and stole Waynes possessions (case No. SF111418A).
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459). In exchange, the remaining count of first degree burglary was dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

Defendant Steven Donald Taber entered a negotiated plea of no contest to knowingly possessing a stolen credit card and a stolen drivers license (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)), in exchange for dismissal of a first degree burglary charge (Pen. Code, 459) and a special allegation prohibiting probation in the event of a violent felony (Pen. Code, 1203, subd. (k)) and the promise of a 16-month sentence. The parties stipulated that defendant was addicted to or in danger of becoming addicted to a controlled substance. The court sentenced defendant to 16 months in state prison and imposed specified fees and fines. Pursuant to the parties stipulation, the court suspended criminal proceedings and committed defendant to the California Rehabilitation Center pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

Ronald Fredrick Jenkins entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and admitted he had a prior serious/violent or strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In exchange, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations. The plea bargain called for a sentencing lid of six years in prison and indicated the trial court would consider dismissing the strike allegation. The trial court sentenced Jenkins to six years in prison. The court denied Jenkins's request for a certificate of probable cause.

Defendant Albert Cabrera reconnected with his estranged daughter, Jane Doe, in 2003, and he became her dentist. On March 17, 2007, she went to his office for a dental appointment. After the appointment, they went out to dinner and drank several beers together. They returned to defendants home, and Doe drank more beer. She became intoxicated and blacked out. She awoke to find defendant having sexual intercourse with her, and then she blacked out again. When she awoke, she immediately left the house and was picked up by her husband at a nearby pharmacy.
Defendant was found guilty of violating Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(3),[1]rape of an intoxicated person, and incest within the meaning of section 285. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years on the rape of an intoxicated person and stayed the sentence on the incest.

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the respondent courts informal letter response, and the reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
A court has the inherent power to control matters and behavior. It may also impose sanctions for bad faith actions or those, which cause unnecessary delay; these sanctions are compensating expenses payable to the other side. (Code Civ. Proc., 128, 128.5.) However, the court does not have the inherent authority to impose punitive money sanctions. (Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 638; see also Andrews v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 779, 783.)

P.M. (father) appeals from orders terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) as to his daughters, T. and A. (the girls).[1] He contends there was insufficient evidence to support the courts finding that the girls were likely to be adopted. On review, Court affirm.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent courts order issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]hearing as to her children R.N., J.N. and A.N. Court will deny the petition.

Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent courts order issued at a contested 18-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his daughter M.J. Court will deny the petition.

Defendant Craig C. Stevens challenges his convictions for one count of stalking and three counts of criminal threats. He contends the court inadequately inquired into his counsels purported conflict of interest, requiring automatic reversal. He further contends insufficient evidence supported one of the criminal threat convictions, and the court wrongly failed to stay sentencing on all of those convictions.
Court affirm. The court made an adequate inquiry of retained defense counsel into the purported conflict; it had no duty to inquire of defendant. Moreover, defendant fails to show that any actual conflict existed or that the court abused its discretion by finding a motion to withdraw as counsel would be untimely.

Karen Kinses appeals from a defense judgment in this dental malpractice action against Mitra Bolbolan MacMillan and Dental Health Anaheim Hills, Inc. (collectively, MacMillan). Kinses argues nonsuit was mistakenly granted on causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and there were other errors. Court agree her fraud claim should have gone to the jury, and so reverse.

Ron Azarkman appeals from a judgment rejecting his claim for damages stemming from Shannon Mitchells alleged anticipatory repudiation of a construction contract entered into between the parties. The case was tried without a jury, and Azarkman argues the court erred by completely ignor[ing] the case [he] pleaded and proved a claim Azarkman supports by pointing out the court made no specific findings against him with respect to the statutory theory he relied upon.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Raul Vera pleaded no contest to an amended complaint charging grand theft from person (Pen. Code, 484/ 487, subd. (c), count one); and battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (d), count two). Appellant agreed to a court trial on the truth of a prior juvenile adjudication allegation, which was charged as a strike for purposes of the three strikes law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 707, subd. (b), Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i) and 1170.12.)[1] In exchange for his pleas, appellant was promised that if the strike allegation was found true by the court he would be sentenced to four years in state prison "top and bottom." However, if the strike was found to be not true, his plea would be with "no conditions."

Defendant and appellant Jesus Warith Jihad (defendant) appeals the judgment and sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of first degree murder of his wife Aisha Hendricks and assault with a deadly weapon on Aishas son, D.H., and her sister, Emma Bowens. Defendant argues that his first degree murder conviction should be reversed on two grounds, namely, (1) insufficiency of the evidence and (2) because the trial courts response to a jury question was inadequate. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by enhancing his sentences on the assault convictions under Penal Code section 12022[1] for use of a deadly weapon. Court conclude that defendants arguments for reversal of his conviction for first degree murder are without merit and therefore affirm the conviction. However, we reverse the trial courts imposition of sentencing enhancements under section 12022 and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to amend the abstract of judgment in that regard. In all other respects, the judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.