CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant William Davis was sentenced to four years in state prison after he pled no contest to possession of cocaine base under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) and admitted allegations that he had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the drugs were the product of an illegal detention. Court affirm.

The People appeal from an order granting defendant Ronald Houffs motion under Penal Code section 995 to set aside the information, which alleged that defendant had sold cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). Court conclude that the magistrates probable cause determination was supported by substantial evidence, and therefore reverse.

Sergio Zarate appeals from an order revoking his probation and lifting a stay of execution on a previously imposed sentence of 13 years and four months in state prison. His sole contention on appeal is that the court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. Court reject the contention and affirm the order.

Heikooti Mounga appeals from a judgment following a plea of no contest and imposition of sentence. His 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; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified defendant that he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

Defendants Francisco and Carmen Argelia Granadeno appeal from the judgment entered following a bench trial where the court found that the Granadenos anticipatorily breached a contract to split the profits from the sale of a home with plaintiff Maria Hilda Gonzalez. Court affirm.

Following the denial of his motion to quash a search warrant and suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5), appellant Manuel Rodriguez pled guilty to the charged offenses of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378),[1]transportation of methamphetamine ( 11379, subd. (a)), and possession of methamphetamine with a firearm ( 11370.1, subd. (a)). Appellant was granted probation on the condition, among others, that he serve one year in the Los Angeles County jail. On this appeal, he contends probable cause did not exist to support the issuance of the search warrant that yielded the proof of his guilt. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Mike Yousefi appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of forgery and grand theft. We hold that evidence he was trying to pay back the bank where he passed the bad checks was either properly admitted at trial or, alternatively, was not prejudicial, and therefore affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Marlo Hempstead (appellant) of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1](count 1) and grand theft of personal property ( 487,
subd. (a)) (count 2). The jury found that appellant had suffered one prior conviction for which he served a prison term. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of three years in state prison, consisting of the midterm of two years for the burglary and a consecutive year for the prison prior. The trial court stayed the term on count 2 pursuant to section 654. Appellant appeals on the grounds that: (1) shackling him during trial and while he was representing himself at trial violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence; (2) by refusing to grant a continuance during the trial, the trial court abused its discretion and violated appellants rights to a fair trial and due process under the California Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (3) the trial court prejudicially erred when it unreasonably restricted the cross examination of a material witness.

This is an unlawful detainer action. The tenant appeals from a judgment in favor of the landlord and an order denying the tenants petition for relief from forfeiture. Court affirm.

Appellant Abel Soto appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of count 1, first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)),[1]count 4, assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)), and count 5, assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury found true the allegations that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun, causing great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d), as to counts 4 and 5, and that the acts were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C), as to counts 1, 4, and 5. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of 72 years eight months to life as follows: as to count 1, the trial court ordered appellant to serve 25 years to life plus an additional 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. As a result of the section 186.22 finding, appellant was deemed ineligible for parole for at least 15 years. As to count 4, the trial court sentenced appellant to three years midterm plus four years midterm for the gun allegation and 10 years for the gang allegation, for a total of 17 years. As to count 5, the trial court sentenced appellant to one year (one-third the midterm) plus one year four months for the gun allegation and three years four months for the gang allegation, to be served consecutive to count 4. Court affirm.

Lawrence H. Davis (Davis) appeals from a trial court order granting Frederick Bates, Andrea Brown, Todd Bates, Ryan Bates and Brett Bates (the Bates) leave to file a complaint alleging a conspiracy between an attorney and his deceased former client, as provided in Civil Code section 1714.10 (section 1714.10). Daviss only contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in granting the Bates leave to file their complaint because under section 1714.10 the Bates failed to establish a reasonable probability of prevailing on their claim. Court hold the trial court did not err in allowing the Bates to file their complaint and therefore affirm.

Armando Chavarria (appellant) appeals following his plea of no contest to kidnapping (Pen. Code, 207, subd. (a)[1](count 2) with the special allegation that the victim was under 14 years old, and to committing a lewd act upon a child ( 288, subd. (a)) (count 3). The trial court imposed the negotiated sentence of 11 years (the upper term) in count 2 and a consecutive two years (one-third the midterm) in count 3, for a total sentence of 13 years in state prison.
Court appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief containing an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues. On October 15, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Appellant was permitted to file a supplemental letter brief on February 2, 2009.

A defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction for attempted robbery, burglary and illegal possession of a crack cocaine pipe. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to dismiss one of his prior strike convictions in the interest of justice. He also contends that the 35-year-to-life sentence the court imposed under the Three Strikes law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal Constitutions. Court affirm.

A jury convicted Isai Acosta Ramirez on five counts arising from his unlawful sexual contact with a minor. Ramirez appeals, challenging the trial courts admission of certain sexually explicit photographs of Ramirez and the victim. Court affirm.