CA Unpub Decisions

The juvenile court declared 17-year-old Wesley F. a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) after sustaining an allegation that he committed grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)). The court placed Wesley on probation on various conditions, including completion of 60 hours of community service and abiding by an 8:00 p.m. curfew. At a subsequent restitution hearing, the court ordered Wesley to pay $7,000 to the theft victim.

Judah Caviness entered a negotiated guilty plea to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) and driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)) with three prior driving under the influence convictions (Veh. Code, 23550, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike (Pen. Code, 667 subds. (b)-(i)). The court denied Caviness's motion to dismiss the strike and sentenced him to seven years four months in prison: six years (the three-year middle term, doubled) for inflicting corporal injury and 16 months (one-third the middle term, doubled) for driving under the influence with prior convictions. Caviness appeals. Court affirm.

Byron David Bensman entered negotiated guilty pleas to one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, 664) and two counts of solicitation of murder ( 653f, subd. (b)). The plea bargain called for a stipulated prison term of 13 years, immediate sentencing and dismissal of a conspiracy to commit murder count. The trial court sentenced Bensman in accordance with the plea bargain.

On June 29, 2006, as a woman alighted from a bus at an intersection in San Bernardino, defendant kicked her from behind, knocking her to the ground. She turned to ask him what he was doing, only to be struck in the face by the defendant, either by punching with his fist, or a kicking with his foot. Then defendant ran off. Officer Yanez was flagged down at the intersection and pursued defendant on foot. Officer Gonzalez was dispatched to the location to assist Officer Yanez. When the two officers caught up with defendant, he resisted arrest by punching and kicking the officers. Officer Gonzalez tackled defendant, and defendant landed on his back on the ground with the officer atop him. While on the ground, defendant punched Officer Gonzalez more than once and took a swing at Officer Yanezs head.
Defendant was charged with one count alleging assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1), and two counts of resisting an executive officer. (Pen. Code, 69, counts 2 and 3.) He pled guilty to counts 1 and 2 pursuant to plea agreement whereby he was placed on probation conditioned on serving 129 days in county jail, cooperating with his psychiatrist and taking all prescribed medications.

Son Ngoc Nguyen appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of special circumstances murder, premeditated and deliberate attempted murder, carrying a firearm concealed within a vehicle while being an active participant in a criminal street gang, and street terrorism, and found true street terrorism and firearm enhancements. Nguyen raises many arguments that can be categorized under two broad topics: insufficient evidence supports the jurys verdicts; and the trial court erroneously instructed the jury.

Housing developers, Forecast Homes, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Forecast Homes, Inc. (referred to collectively and in the singular as Forecast), appeals from the judgment entered in its declaratory relief action in favor of Steadfast Insurance Company (Steadfast). Forecast contractually required all its subcontractors to defend and hold it harmless against any liability arising out of the subcontractors work. Subcontractors were required to add Forecast to their general liability insurance policies as an additional insured. Several subcontractors obtained their required insurance coverage from Steadfast, who later refused to indemnify Forecast when a lawsuit was filed by several homeowners against Forecast for construction defects. Steadfast maintained the subcontractor did not pay the policys self-insured retention (SIR), which was a precondition for coverage. It argued only the named insured, not Forecast, could satisfy the policies SIR and trigger coverage. The trial court agreed and concluded the policies were unambiguous, not against public policy, and not illusory. Court agree and affirm the judgment.

There was sufficient evidence to support numerous child abuse convictions, even though each act was not described with differentiation. The court did not err when it imposed separate punishments on counts 18, 19 and 20. The court did err in sentencing defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 667.61. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) In all other respects, Court affirm.

This is a writ petition seeking relief on the basis the trial court failed to follow this courts directions on remand from an earlier appeal. In our prior opinion, we concluded a settlement entered into between Denise Dolley, the cotrustee and primary beneficiary of the Marianna Callies Trust (the Trust), and her son-in-law Robert Matthews (acting as guardian for his two daughters, the contingent secondary beneficiaries of the Trust), did not curtail Dolleys right to remove her cotrustee, Kenneth Cummins with or without cause and replace him with a different qualified cotrustee. We directed the probate court, on remand, to remove Cummins, and allow Dolley to choose his replacement.

A jury convicted defendant Christopher Barkley of oral copulation with a minor under 16 (count 1), lewd or lascivious acts on a child 14 or 15 (count 2), and five counts of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor by an adult (counts 5-10). It also found true allegations that the minors were four years younger than defendant for purposes of one-, two-, or three-year sentence enhancements. The trial court then found that a prior prison-term conviction suffered and admitted by defendant constituted a strike for purposes of the Three Strikes law over defendants objection that the prior did not amount to a strike because it was a misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced defendant to 30 years and four months consisting of a 12-year midterm (six years doubled under Three Strikes law) for count 5 plus a two-year enhancement, 16 months consecutive (one-third midterm doubled) for count 1, four years consecutive (one-third midterm doubled) each for counts 6, 7, and 9 plus eight-month enhancements for each, and a one-year term for the prior-prison-term finding. It imposed concurrent terms for counts 2 (four-year midterm), 8 (12-year midterm), and 10 (12-year midterm).

The events at issue in this proceeding took place in December 2006. On December 26th, in two separate attacks, three men forcibly entered a San Jose apartment and severely injured two men living there. One of the victims identified defendant in a photo line-up. On December 31st, defendant was arrested.

A jury convicted defendant of possessing cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code 11351.5.)[1] The same day, the court found true the allegations that defendant had been twice previously convicted of possessing cocaine base for sale, had served two prior prison terms, and had been free on bail when he committed the new offense. (Pen. Code 667.5, subd. (b), 12022.1; 11370.2.) At sentencing, the court struck one of the prior convictions and both of the prior prison terms, and sentenced defendant to prison for nine years: four years for possession for sale, three years consecutive for the remaining prior conviction, and two years consecutive for the on-bail enhancement. On appeal, defendant contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to object to the introduction of evidence of his prior convictions for section 11351.5 violations. He also contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendants prior convictions. Court will affirm.

Gregory Garrett appeals from convictions of robbery, attempted robbery and burglary arising out of incidents at a Subway Sandwich Store (Subway) and a Trader Vics Restaurant (Trader Vics). He contends two of the convictions, for robbery of Subway and attempted robbery of Trader Vics, must be reversed because a store or restaurant cannot be a victim of a robbery separate from its employees. The Attorney General concedes the point, and Court reverse the two convictions.

Nicolas Honesto Gonzalez (Gonzalez) appeals from his conviction of 16 counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14, and four counts of sexual acts with a child under age 10. He waived his right to a jury, and was convicted following a court trial. His counsel has filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende,[1] in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record. Counsel declares she notified Gonzalez he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wished to call to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed. Upon independent review of the record, court find no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm.

Jennifer T., the mother of Jesse T. (mother), appeals from an order terminating her parental rights following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing (.26 hearing).[1] Mother contends the order must be reversed because the Mendocino County Department of Social Services (Department) failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), (25 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.). The Department concedes the content and manner of service of the ICWA notices were deficient and requests a limited reversal as described in In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 704 (Francisco W.). Court appreciate the Departments straightforward admission of error and remand the case to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the ICWA.