CA Unpub Decisions

By written opinion filed on December 15, 2009, this court modified the judgment imposed against defendant, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Defendant Donald Eugene Cross pled no contest to vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) in exchange for the dismissal of four other charges and a three-year sentence lid. The stipulated factual basis for his plea was a police report showing that defendant took the victims car on April 6, 2008, with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive her of its use and possession.

A jury found defendant Lenni Wilkes guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and making criminal threats. The trial court sustained allegations that defendant had prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (d) after defendant waived his right to a jury trial. At the sentencing hearing, the court declined an invitation to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike either of the prior convictions for three strikes purposes, stating that I think this isnt even a close case . . . . It sentenced defendant to state prison.
efendant contends the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in declining to strike either prior. Court shall affirm.
The circumstances of the offenses form part of the analysis of defendants argument. Court therefore will incorporate them in the Discussion rather than relate them separately.

A jury convicted appellant Virgil Popescu of one count of stalking (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (a),[1] count 1), two counts of possession of a deadly weapon ( 12020, subd. (a)(1), a sawed-off rifle and a billy club in counts 2 and 3, respectively), two counts of possession of a firearm silencer ( 12520, counts 4 and 5), and possession of an assault weapon ( 12280, subd. (b), count 6). The court sentenced Popescu to a total term of three years eight months. On appeal,Popescu raises challenges to the convictions for stalking and possession of a billy club, and to the sentence.

A modification decision.

In this action for equitable subrogation and related counts, defendants Children's Hospital Insurance Limited (CHIL) and Rady Children's Hospital of San Diego (Rady) appeal a summary judgment for plaintiff American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania (American Casualty). CHIL and Rady contend American Casualty is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because it did not satisfy certain of the elements of an equitable subrogation claim, including that Rady's employee, the defendant in the underlying action, was entitled to benefits under the CHIL policy; American Casualty was not primarily responsible for the claimed loss in the underlying action; American Casualty did not pay defense costs and indemnity in the underlying action as a volunteer; and justice requires that the entire loss be shifted to CHIL and Rady.Court find no triable issues of fact and affirm the judgment.

In September 2005, L.F. (mother) petitioned the superior court to free her children from the parental custody and control of their father, F.C., Jr. (father or FCJ). In February 2006, the superior court granted mothers petition and father appealed. On February 21, 2007, this court filed an opinion reversing the superior court order for failure to appoint counsel for the minor children, defects in the court-appointed investigators report, lingering questions about fathers intent to abandon the children, and the courts possible misplaced reliance upon Family Code section 7825 (parent convicted of felony; right of action). After the opinion was filed, father committed a residential burglary resulting in a four-year term in state prison. Upon our remand of the matter, Kern County Family Court Services prepared supplemental reports, the court conducted further proceedings, and fathers parental rights were again terminated. He appeals and we affirm the orders terminating parental rights based on the trial courts finding of abandonment ( 7822).

A jury found Jamal Abdulmuhyee guilty of second degree robbery, attempted second degree robbery, and possession of a deadly weapon. On appeal, Abdulmuhyee asserts the trial court erred in denying his Penal Code section 1118.1 motion to dismiss the robbery and attempted robbery counts because the evidence was insufficient to support those convictions. Court conclude the contention lacks merit and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Tom McVeigh appeals from a judgment that dismissed this unlawful business practices action after a demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. McVeigh argues the complaint sufficiently alleged General Mills Sales, Inc. (General Mills) promoted one of its products by means of an illegal gambling device. court conclude McVeigh lacks standing to sue and for that reason affirm.

This purported appeal involves seven cases. Four of the seven cases are civil harassment proceedings (see Code Civ. Proc., 527.6); three are civil actions.[1] The purported appellants are Trang Phan and Anh Pho, apparently wife and husband. Respondents are Thuy Mai, allegedly Anh Pho's former "putative spouse," and Ngoc Mai and Loc Mai, apparently Thuy Mai's siblings. Trang Phan and Anh Pho, who are representing themselves, provided seven volumes of appellants' appendix. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124.) Their appellate briefs were difficult to decipher.

Defendant Ronald Paul Wreath worked in concert with 16 other codefendants as a member of the Nuestra Familia criminal street gang. He appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count conspiracy to commit a crime (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1)), one count possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and one count possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1).) He also admitted enhancements on these various counts for committing the offense in furtherance of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)), and committing the offense while armed (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c)). He further admitted two prior felony convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 subdivision (c) and two prison priors within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to eight years and four months in prison. This timely appeal ensued. Despite joining in several requests for continuances and acknowledging that he had waived time, defendant sought a certificate of probable cause, asserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The trial court granted the request.

Michael Perrault appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187). The jury further found that defendant personally used a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (id., 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)). Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in his closing argument and that his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to argue imperfect self-defense and did not request a special instruction on self-defense. Court affirm.

Renato Hughes, Jr. was convicted of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2) and burglary ( 459). A jury also found true an allegation that a principal was armed with a shotgun during commission of the burglary ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Hughes was sentenced to a total term of eight years in state prison.
Hughes raises two issues on appeal. First, he seeks review of a pre-trial order pursuant to which the trial court found that there was no discoverable material in the personnel records of a Lake County police officer who participated in the investigation of the crimes that gave rise to this case. Second, Hughes contends that the sentencing court erred by imposing an upper term sentence for the burglary conviction. Court affirm the judgment and sentence.

Appellant Raymond G. Cepeda appeals a restraining order that compels him to stay away from respondent Rachel Cohen-Cepeda. Court affirm the order.