CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Robbie Blajos entered a negotiated plea of no contest to attempted murder and second degree robbery. No preliminary hearing was conducted, but the amended felony complaint alleged that on January 17, 2008, Blajos and two accomplices robbed Dee Pak Aggerwal and attempted to murder Leonardo Calderon. Testimony elicited from Blajos to establish a factual basis for the plea revealed that his accomplice Gomez handed guns to Blajos and accomplice Duran and told them to rob two men on the street. The probation report indicates that Blajos pointed a gun at one of the men and took his wallet and mobile phone. The probation report further indicates that earlier on the same night, Blajos and Duran approached three men who were walking and robbed at least one of them at knifepoint. Blajos then slashed the knife toward the robbery victims neck, and cut the victims thumb. After his plea of no contest, Blajos retained private counsel and unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which Blajos and his former attorney testified. The court denied the motion and sentenced Blajos to 22 years in prison, as provided in the plea agreement.

Petitioner and Real Party in Interest the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition in March 2009, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, after it received a referral that a 16-year-old child, petitioner Z.R., was pregnant, had a sexually transmitted disease and was engaged in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 28-year-old man. Evidence revealed that Z.R., a native of Mexico, moved away from her Mothers home and came to the United States with her adult boyfriend when she was 14 years old, with the blessing of her mother, Real Party in Interest, C.V. (Mother). Mother knew Z.R. was pregnant. Mother did not recognize the existence of any problem with the sexual relationship between her minor daughter and the man. Mother also indicated she lacked the funds to provide for her daughters or the babys medical care if Z.R. was returned to her custody in Mexico.

The trial court erred in scheduling an Order to Show Cause re Contempt hearing on November 17, 2009 without a charging affidavit. Accordingly, the petition is granted.

Defendant Rodney John Sency was charged by indictment with a felony, voluntary manslaughter, and two misdemeanors, illegal movement of a dead body and failure to notify the coroner of a death. Following denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of outrageous government conduct, a jury acquitted defendant of voluntary manslaughter but convicted him of the two misdemeanors. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation with various conditions. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by denying the motion to dismiss the indictment. Court shall affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Clyde William Thigpen guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The trial court found defendant had two prior strikes and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 35 years to life in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct while discussing the reasonable doubt standard during closing argument. Court affirm.

Appellant Wendy H., mother of half siblings Y.A. and A.B. (the minors),[1] appeals from an order of the juvenile court finding the minors to be persons within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and removing the minors from appellants physical custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 & 361.1.) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), and there was insufficient evidence to support the removal order. Court shall affirm the juvenile courts orders.

A jury convicted Eduardo Garcia of transporting more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)).[1] The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Garcia on three years' formal probation with various conditions, including that he serve 180 days in local custody. Garcia appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument.

A jury found codefendants, Julius Earl Edwards (Edwards) and Jerome Julian (Julian), guilty of burglary (Pen. Code, 459),[1]and actively participating in a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (a)).[2] The jury found true the allegations that Edwards and Julian committed the burglary to benefit a criminal street gang. ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B).) The trial court found true the allegations that Edwards suffered (1) a prior strike conviction ( 1170.12, subds. (a) & (d)); (2) a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)(1)); and (3) five prior felony convictions, for which he served prison terms ( 667.5).[3] Julian admitted suffering a prior felony conviction, for which he served a prison term. ( 667.5.) The trial court sentenced Edwards to state prison for a term of 25 years. The trial court sentenced Julian to state prison for a term of 12 years.

Barbara Feinstein, Mervin Feinstein, Janet Sandquist, and Allan Sandquist (collectively referred to as the Feinsteins) sued Dwight Chrismer, Suzanne Chrismer, Ronald Stearns, Alicia Stearns, and SoCal Executives, Inc. (collectively referred to as the Chrismers). The Feinsteins made nine claims against the Chrismers, which included claims for breach of contract, breach of a promissory note, and fraud. The trial court granted the Feinsteinss writ of attachment against the Chrismers. The Chrismers moved the trial court to vacate, discharge, and/or quash the writ of attachment (the motion to discharge). The trial court denied the motion to discharge.

A jury convicted defendant Keith Lamont Menyweathers of possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Safe. Code 11377, subd. (a).) Thereafter, defendant admitted having sustained a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code 667, subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and a prior prison term (Pen. Code 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of three years eight months of imprisonment consisting of the following: the low term of 16 months on count 1 doubled pursuant to the strike prior plus 12 months for the prior prison term.[1] On appeal, defendant contends that the trial courts erroneous reading of CALCRIM No. 359, that the jury must rather than may rely on defendants out of court statements to convict him, resulted in reversible error. Court disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment in full.

Defendant Rite Aid Corporation employed plaintiff Gregory Hunter as a computer field technician. His work performance was not satisfactory, but he also suffered an injury on the job before he was terminated.
Hunter sued Rite Aid for employment discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12940),[1]wrongful termination, and unpaid overtime. The superior court granted Rite Aids summary judgment motion. Hunter appeals and Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant and petitioner, Friends of San Antonio Heights (Friends), is a group of residents of an Upland neighborhood in San Bernardino County. Wade Prater and Emily Prater, the real parties in interest, own a .77-acre lot located at 2476 Sierra Drive that they propose to subdivide into two lots. After the County approved the subdivision, Friends filed a petition for writ of mandate. The superior court denied the petition, finding the project was compatible with the community character and consistent with the general plan and that it would not have a substantial environmental impact. We reject the appeal by Friends and affirm the judgment.

A juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] 602, subd. (a)) was filed in the Superior Court of Tulare County alleging appellant A.E. (born 1990) committed count I, carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(4)); count II, unlawful manufacture or possession of an instrument and weapon, a screwdriver (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(1)); and count III, participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found the three counts true. Appellant was declared a ward of the court and placed on probation subject to electronic monitoring at his parents house. On appeal, appellant contends his motion to suppress should have been granted because he was illegally detained and searched. He also contends the matter must be remanded because the juvenile court failed to consider his suitability for the deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) program and failed to declare whether the three offenses were felonies or misdemeanors.

Jessie Junior Gonzalez and Gabriel Daniel Morales (collectively appellants) were charged with robbery (Pen. Code, 211; count 1)[1] and street terrorism ( 186.22, subd. (a), with the robbery allegedly committed for the benefit of the MD 13 criminal street gang. Gonzalez was also charged with misdemeanor sexual battery ( 243.4, subd. (a); count 3), and it was alleged Morales had served two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). On February 8, 2007, a jury found Gonzalez and Morales guilty of robbery and street terrorism, and convicted Gonzalez of the lesser included offense of simple battery. The jury deadlocked on the criminal street gang enhancement and the court declared a mistrial. On November 6, a second jury found true the gang enhancement allegation related to the robbery conviction.