CA Unpub Decisions

1. On page 2, the following sentenceCourt will find merit to this contention and remand the matter for further proceedings in the second full paragraph is deleted. The following sentences are added to the second full paragraph after the sentence ending in when it denied his Pitchess motion :
Additionally, in a petition for rehearing filed on January 29, 2010, appellant contends that he is entitled to additional presentence credit pursuant to Penal Code section 4019 as amended effective January 25, 2010. Court will find merit to Ledesmas first contention and find that the record is inadequate to resolve his second contention. court will also remand the matter for further proceedings.
2. On page 7, the following section is inserted after the first paragraph prior to the heading DISPOSITION:

1. On page 2, the following sentenceCourt will find merit to this contention and remand the matter for further proceedings in the second full paragraph is deleted. The following sentences are added to the second full paragraph after the sentence ending in when it denied his Pitchess motion :
Additionally, in a petition for rehearing filed on January 29, 2010, appellant contends that he is entitled to additional presentence credit pursuant to Penal Code section 4019 as amended effective January 25, 2010. Court will find merit to Ledesmas first contention and find that the record is inadequate to resolve his second contention. court will also remand the matter for further proceedings.
2. On page 7, the following section is inserted after the first paragraph prior to the heading DISPOSITION:

1. On page 2, the following sentenceCourt will find merit to this contention and remand the matter for further proceedings in the second full paragraph is deleted. The following sentences are added to the second full paragraph after the sentence ending in when it denied his Pitchess motion :
Additionally, in a petition for rehearing filed on January 29, 2010, appellant contends that he is entitled to additional presentence credit pursuant to Penal Code section 4019 as amended effective January 25, 2010. Court will find merit to Ledesmas first contention and find that the record is inadequate to resolve his second contention. court will also remand the matter for further proceedings.
2. On page 7, the following section is inserted after the first paragraph prior to the heading DISPOSITION:

Appellant Juan Jose Pulido, Jr. pled no contest to possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359), admitted a prior strike offense (Pen. Code, 667.5, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and received a two-year prison sentence doubled to four years because of the prior strike conviction. On appeal, he challenges the courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence. court affirm.

On August 16, 2008, appellant, Moises Rosales, entered a JCPenny store in Hanford and was seen by a worker taking items off a shelf and handing them to a woman. After the couple walked into the luggage department, the worker saw Rosales carrying a backpack and the woman a large bag. Rosales dropped the backpack and walked out of the store with the woman without paying for anything.
On August 17, 2008, at approximately 12:00 a.m. Hanford Police Officer Frank Martinez arrested Rosales at a local bar. During a postarrest search, Martinez found a small amount of methamphetamine and a glass pipe with white residue and a burnt edge. Rosales admitted that he stole the shirt he was wearing from JCPennys (case No. 08CM2345).

Elizabeth C. appeals from an order denying a changed circumstances petition that requested further reunification services and custody of her two children, Destiny M. and Margarita M. She also appeals from a subsequent order that terminated parental rights. Elizabeth argues it was an abuse of discretion to deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and parental rights should not have been terminated because the benefit exception applies. court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Tommy Lee Galia appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (b)), and hit and run causing bodily injury. (Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a)/(b)(1.) After the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal defendants counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Based on a statement filed by defendant and this courts review of the record on appeal, we asked counsel for defendant and respondent to submit further briefing. Finding any error by the trial court to be harmless, Court will affirm the judgment.

Daniel Nathaniel Abram appeals from an order extending his commitment as a Mentally Disordered Offender. (Pen. Code, 2970.) Appellant was admitted to Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 2962 on August 5, 1993, having previously served a three year prison sentence for second degree robbery under Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (b). Because appellants most recent commitment was set to expire on August 5, 2009, on March 6, 2009, the District Attorney of Santa Clara County filed a petition to compel involuntary treatment. Appellant waived trial and agreed to submit the matter on the petition and two reports. After considering the reports and arguments by counsel, the trial court found the allegations in the petition to be true. This timely appeal ensued.

Devonte M. appeals from a disposition entered after he admitted possessing a sawed-off shotgun. (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(1).) He contends (1) the juvenile court erred when it denied his motion to suppress, and (2) two of the probation conditions that the court imposed were erroneous. Court reject appellants first argument but will remand the case to allow the juvenile court to explain its decision more fully.

Defendant Isaiah W., born in February 1992, appeals an order committing him to the Department of Juvenile Facilities (DJF)[1] after he was found to have committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211), assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)), and personal firearm use as to both counts (Pen. Code, 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)), and declared a ward of the juvenile court. He contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to DJF. Court disagree and affirm.

After one judge refused to approve a proposed plea agreement in a murder case, a second judge granted respondent Nathan Gideons motion for specific performance of it. (Pen. Code,[1] 187.) Judgmenta 13-year sentence for voluntary manslaughterwas entered according to the terms of the original plea agreement. (Former 192 [as amended by Stats. 1998, ch. 278, 1].) The People appeal,[2] contending inter alia that Gideon was not entitled to specific performance of the rejected plea agreement, and that the second judge had no power to override the first judges rejection of the proposed plea agreement. Court agree and thus, reverse both the challenged

Appellant Kevin Sean Smith filed a civil complaint against his former employer respondent Bank of America (the Bank) alleging discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, 12940.) The Bank moved for summary judgment arguing it was entitled to prevail, as a matter of law, because appellant was one of its officers, and under controlling federal law, it was entitled to dismiss its officers at any time. The trial court agreed with the Bank and granted it summary judgment. Appellant now appeals contending the trial court applied the controlling law incorrectly. We affirm.

In this case, defendant entered a plea of no contest to a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a),[1] (lewd act with a child under the age of 14), and admitted one prior felony conviction pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced on the felony offense to the middle term of six years in state prison plus one year consecutive for the prison term prior, for a total of seven years in state prison. The remainder of the counts in the complaint were dismissed. 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

Appellant Corrina Rose Gonzales pleaded no contest to charges of assault with a deadly weapon and receiving a stolen vehicle. Appellants court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record as required by People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have done so and find no issues that merit