CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Duane Allen Agamau appeals his jury trial conviction on charges of grand theft and receiving stolen property. Defendant contends he was subjected to custodial interrogation without first being advised of his Miranda rights. Court affirm.

Appellant Keith Richard Newell pled no contest to failing to register as a sex offender and admitted having suffered a prior strike. (Former Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(D) [as amended by Stats. 2005, ch. 722, 3.5]; 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) Consistent with a plea agreement, Newell was sentenced to four years in state prison. He appeals his sentence on equal protection grounds. As we find that his plea agreement precludes him from challenging a sentence imposed consistent with its terms, Court affirm the judgment.

Laura Fragoso (Wife) appeals from the trial courts Decision after Hearing (decision) in a marriage dissolution proceeding. The decision set aside a grant deed vesting sole ownership of the family residence in Wife and confirmed the residence as community property to be divided equally between Laura and her former husband Sergio Fragoso (Husband). Wife contends the trial court erred in determining that she failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence arising under Family Code, section 721, which applies to any interspousal property transaction. Wife also contends remand is required because the trial courts decision disregarded her claim for calculation of Epstein credits. Having thoroughly considered each of Wifes contentions of error, Court affirm.

D.T. appeals from an order of the juvenile court requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,950 to the victim of a residential burglary, including $1,000 for jewelry missing from her home. He contends there is not substantial evidence to support the victims claim that the jewelry was worth $1,000. Court affirm.

Plaintiffs, 35 individual unit owners in a development called The Beacon, appeal from an order denying them leave to file a Tardy Second Amended Complaint and granting interlocutory dismissal. They maintain that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to amend their complaint to allege causes of action against the developments general contractor, Webcor Construction, Inc. (Webcor). Court affirm.

Plaintiff Matthew Haley (Haley) seeks damages for injuries sustained in a collision with a truck driven by Juan Carlos Hernandez (Juan Carlos),[1] an employee of Landscape Maintenance of America, a California corporation doing business as Green Vista Landscape (Green Vista), which firm owned the truck. Haley initially named as defendants Juan Carlos and Green Vista, but later added Juan Carloss father, Adolfo Hernandez (Adolfo), a Green Vista supervisor. Haley sued on theories of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment. He appeals after summary judgment was granted to those defendants for reasons that Juan Carlos was not acting within the scope of employment for purposes of respondeat superior liability, and had not been entrusted with the truck for purposes of negligent entrustment. Court affirm.

A.J., Sr. (father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights as to his three children, A.J., A.J.2, and A.J., Jr. He contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that the children were adoptable and that the court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). Court affirm.

Counsel for appellant Armando Martinez has filed a brief raising no specific issues and asking for our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has also notified appellant of this filing and of his right to inform the court of any appellate issues. Court have received no communication from appellant himself. Having conducted the requisite review, Court conclude no arguable issues exist on appeal and affirm.

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that appellant had committed an act of vandalism and sustained the Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) petition filed against him. Appellant was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation in his parents custody. He appeals from both the jurisdictional and dispositional orders claiming (1) lack of substantial evidence, (2) a Miranda violation by the police, and (3) that an unconstitutional search and seizure probation condition was imposed by the juvenile Court. court reject these contentions and affirm the juvenile courts orders.

Minor S.H. appeals from the juvenile courts dispositional findings of July 15, 2008, and from the courts transfer-in orders of July 24, 2008. Appellants court-appointed 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 appellant, 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.) We have independently reviewed the record and, after requesting supplemental briefs from the parties, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

Appellant, appearing in pro per, appeals from two orders of the San Mateo County Superior Court which, respectively: (1) denied his petition under Government Code section 946.6 to be relieved of the requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act regarding his attempt to sue the City of Menlo Park for personal injuries allegedly suffered while being arrested by that citys police, and (2) although granting reconsideration of its earlier order, again denied appellants section 946.6 motion.
The orders appealed from are affirmed.

Appellant Dwayne Giles was sentenced to prison for a term of 50 years to life after a jury convicted him of first degree murder and found true an allegation that he had personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death. (Pen.Code, 187, subd. (a), 189, 12022.53, subd. (d).) He contends he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses because the trial court admitted hearsay evidence of statements by the murder victim regarding a prior act of domestic violence. He also argues that his conviction must be reduced to second degree murder because the evidence was insufficient to show that he acted with premeditation and deliberation. In our prior opinion Court affirmed the judgment.

Christopher Anthony Hernandez appeals the judgment entered following conviction by jury of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder in which he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 664/187, 12022.53, subd. (d)),[1] attempted murder in which he personally used a firearm ( 664/187, 12022.53, subd. (b)), assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), murder committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang in which he personally discharged a firearm causing death ( 187, 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subd. (d)), and attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang in which he personally used a deadly weapon and personally inflicted great bodily injury (664/187, 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022, subd. (b), 12022.7, subd. (a)). On appeal, Hernandez claims Faretta error (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562]), insufficiency of the evidence with respect to a criminal street gang enhancement and violation of the multiple conviction rule and double jeopardy principles with respect to the firearm enhancement associated with the murder conviction. Court reject these claims and affirm the judgment.

Elvin Lee Hudspeth, Jr., pled guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) and admitted a gun-use enhancement (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b)). On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We dismiss the appeal because (1) Hudspeth did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, 1237.5), and (2) Hudspeth forfeited his appellate rights when he pled guilty. Hudspeth also petitions for writ of habeas corpus, contending his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate an alibi defense. He also argues that his plea was the result of threats to his wife and other family members. Neither argument has merit, and Court therefore deny his petition.