CA Unpub Decisions

Charged with first degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211/215, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (knife) (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and a misdemeanor count of child endangerment (Pen. Code, 273a), appellant Grant Johnson was convicted by a jury of the robbery, simple assault, and child endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to eight years imprisonment. Court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. While not arguing against appellant he filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case and advised us he was unable to find an issue to argue on appellants behalf. Court informed appellant he had 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. No such communication was filed. We have reviewed the record of appellants trial and find ourselves in agreement with his trial counsel: There is no arguable error in the proceedings against appellant. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Charged with first degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211/215, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (knife) (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and a misdemeanor count of child endangerment (Pen. Code, 273a), appellant Leiha Federico was convicted by a jury of the robbery, simple assault, and child endangerment. The trial court suspended her sentence and placed her on formal probation for a term of three years, with one of her conditions of probation being that she serve 365 days in the Orange County jail; she was given credit for 211 days actually served and 105 conduct credit days, leaving her 49 days to serve.
Court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. While not arguing against appellant he filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case and advised us he was unable to find an issue to argue on appellants behalf. Court informed appellant she had 30 days to file written argument in her own behalf. No such communication was filed. We have reviewed the record of appellants trial and find ourselves in agreement with her trial counsel: There is no arguable error in the proceedings against appellant. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Defendant Jorge Santos Torres was convicted after jury trial of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187).[1] The jury further found true a special allegation that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife, in the commission of the offense ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the indeterminate term of 15 years to life consecutive to the determinate term of one year. On appeal, defendant contends that the admission of irrelevant and highly prejudicial gang evidence resulted in an unfair trial and violated his right to due process. He further contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the introduction of the gang evidence. As we reject both of defendants claims, we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Sean Hammond was charged with one count of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and one count of transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)). A jury found defendant not guilty of possession for sale, but guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The jury also found defendant guilty of transportation of cocaine base. In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true an enhancement allegation (Health & Saf. Code, 11370, subds. (a), (c), 11370.2, subd. (a)) that defendant had a prior conviction for transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), which occurred in 2001.

Appellant Margaret Harris, a self-represented litigant, brought an action against her landlord, Richard Yoza,[1] as well as respondents City of San Jose (City) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), alleging many instances of wrongdoing by all defendants. The trial court sustained defendants demurrers to the original complaint, the first amended complaint, and the second amended complaint with leave to amend. The trial court sustained defendants demurrers to the third amended complaint without leave to amend, finding that Harris had failed to state a cause of action as to either defendant and that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by further amendment. Thereafter, judgments of dismissal were entered in favor of the City and Wells Fargo.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon on evidence that, on two successive days, he used a skateboard to batter the same victim. Defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his Marsden motion, improperly denied him the right to retain counsel of his choice, failed to fulfill its sua sponte duty to instruct on a lesser included offense, and erred in continuing to conduct the trial after he stopped attending. Court find no error and affirm.

After being detained and then arrested in East Palo Alto for possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1))[1] while on probation with a search condition, appellant pled no contest to that charge and was placed on further probation. He appeals, claiming the trial court incorrectly denied his Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence, claiming that he was unlawfully detained when the arresting officers learned he was on probation with a search condition. Court disagree with this contention and hence affirm.

Defendant Parasto Sedigh Farasati was born in Iran and left that country with her family in 1977, when she was three years old. Defendant and her family came to this country in 1990, and she was granted status as a legal permanent resident. Defendant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine for sale in 2002 and 2005, pursuant to negotiated plea bargains in which defendant entered pleas of no contest (2002) and guilty (2005) in exchange for a grant of probation and diversion to a rehabilitation program instead of imprisonment. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378.) When entering her pleas, she was advised in writing that her criminal convictions subjected her to deportation. Defendant successfully completed probation in July 2008.

M.P. (mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating its dependency jurisdiction over her daughter Michele R. and awarding legal and physical custody to Micheles father, A.R. (father). Mother argues: (1) the court applied the wrong legal standard when it terminated jurisdiction; (2) the facts of the case required continuing supervision by the juvenile court; and (3) the court abused its discretion when it ordered that mother would have no visitation with Michelle. Court affirm.

The trial court reinstated appellant Gabriel Herreras probation with an extended term based upon appellants admission that he violated the terms of his probation. On appeal, he claims the trial court should have dismissed the petition alleging a probation violation for lack of jurisdiction because he constructively filed a request for speedy sentencing in absentia under Penal Code section 1203.2a after he was committed to prison in Nevada for a new offense. Court affirm.

The minor Joseph B. appeals from an order continuing him as a ward of the court and committing him for out-of-home placement. His counsel has asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436). After review of the record, Court find no arguable issues and affirm.

Appellant A. D.-W. (mother) appeals from an order filed on April 9, 2009,[1] in which the juvenile court terminated her parental rights[2] after finding it was likely her daughter S.W. would be adopted. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.)[3] She argues the court erred in failing to apply the sibling relationship exception to prevent termination of her rights and S.W.s adoption. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) Court reject this argument, and affirm.

Defendant Michael Foots appeals from a judgment sentencing him to a four-year prison term following revocation of probation. He contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him without benefit of a supplemental probation report, instead relying on a report prepared over two years earlier when he was granted probation. The People concede the trial courts error but contend defendant has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by the error. Court reverse.

Khalif Robinson appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of selling a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352.)[1] His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
On June 16, 2008, Sergeant Michael Browne of the San Francisco Police Department was working undercover as part of a buy-bust operation near the intersection of 16th and Mission Streets. Shortly before 3:00 p.m., Browne saw appellant and another man standing next to each other looking at their hands. When appellant turned toward Browne, they made eye contact and nodded to each other. Browne then walked up to appellant and asked him for a solid, i.e., $20 of crack cocaine. Appellant said, Yes, walk with me. As appellant and Browne walked, Browne gave appellant $20 in marked currency. In exchange, appellant spit out a rock of what appeared to be cocaine from his mouth and gave it to Browne. Browne signaled other officers that they should arrest appellant.