CA Unpub Decisions

Mother appeals from orders removing son J.M.1 from the care of a maternal aunt (aunt) and son J.M.2 from his fathers custody. The children join mothers appeal. Court find no reversible error, and affirm the juvenile courts order.

Defendant Frank Silva appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, with gang and firearm discharge findings. Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jurys findings on the gang enhancement allegation (Pen. Code, 186.22, subdivision (b); all further statutory references pertain to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified) and the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm discharge allegation. Court affirm.

Defendant Tommie Mario Day appeals from the judgment of conviction reinstated by the trial court upon remand for further proceedings related to defendants motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Defendant contends the trial court erred by refusing to disclose two complaints that had been filed against the officer in question after the date of the original Pitchess hearing. Court affirm.

Minor C.G. appeals from the order of wardship entered after the juvenile court found that she committed petty theft in violation of Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a). Court direct the trial court to correct a clerical error in the order of wardship but otherwise affirm.

On December 27, 2008, a witness saw three guys approach an apartment building in the County of Los Angeles. One of the individuals wore a blue sweater and held a spray-can. While the other two looked around, the male in the blue sweater spray-painted graffiti on the buildings wall. The witness called police. At the scene, officers detained appellant J. G., who was wearing a blue sweater. An officer testified that appellant had what appeared to be red paint on his hands and that there was matching red graffiti on the wall of the apartment building, which smelled like fresh paint. That same officer read appellant his Miranda rights and appellant indicated he understood his rights. Appellant waived his rights and told the officer he had written The Bratz on the wall. The officer gave appellant the opportunity to write a statement of apology, which appellant did. The judgment is affirmed.

The trial court granted cross-defendants special motion to strike three causes of action of W. W. Smiths cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16) on the ground that the claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution arose from activities protected by section 425.16 and Smith failed to meet his burden to show a reasonable probability of success on the merits. Court agree and affirm the order.

Tyson Lee appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1)) and admitted that he served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for 28 months, consisting of the low term of 16 months, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement. The evidence at trial established that on August 4, 2008, parole agent Alfred Perez conducted a parole search at appellants residence in Los Angeles and found a box of live ammunition for a 45-caliber handgun in a computer bag. The box held 50 rounds of ammunition and eight rounds were missing. Appellant stated the missing rounds were with the gun and that no gun was in the apartment. It was stipulated that appellant was previously convicted of attempted extortion in violation of Penal Code section 524.

Randall Earl Williams appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Williams to 16 months in state prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Kevin Salazar appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)) and his admission that he suffered a prior serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) through (d) and 667, subds. (b) through (i)). He was sentenced to prison for 32 months, consisting of the low term of 16 months, doubled by reason of his prior strike conviction. The charge of second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, 459) was dismissed by reason of plea negotiations.

After knocking down and injuring another man in a drunken fight, defendant Miguel Angel Cabrera was charged with three assault offenses (counts one through three),[1] one charge of actively participating in a street gang (count four) and three gang enhancements to counts one through three.[2] A jury found him guilty on counts one, two, and four but found the gang enhancements not true. It found true four 10 year old convictions for robbery and assault in the State of Washington. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 30 years to life, including a concurrent sentence on count four. The defendant appeals, principally challenging the count four conviction.
Count four charged the defendant as follows: On or about July 6, 2006, [defendant] did unlawfully and actively participate in a criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in and have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, and did promote, further and assist in felony criminal conduct by gang members.

A jury found defendant Deandre Smith guilty of possessing cocaine base for sale. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on five years probation. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence of intent to sell; (2) the court erred in instructing with a now-superseded version of CALCRIM No. 358; and (3) the court erred in handling the jurys request for a readback of testimony. Disagreeing with these contentions, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Chokchai Krongkiet entered a negotiated plea of guilty to five counts of forcible lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1))[1] in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and a stipulated 40-year state prison sentence. The court sentenced defendant accordingly.
Defendant appeals. The court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause. ( 1237.5.) He contends (1) the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction when it vacated its order permitting him to withdraw his guilty plea and (2) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Court shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Steven Richard Wolff pled no contest to driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (b)) and admitted that he had a prior conviction for the such an offense in 2004 (Veh. Code, 23550.5) and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). On appeal, defendant contends, and the People agree, that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to calculate additional custody credits and to correct the abstract of judgment.

This is the second time this case has been before us. As described in our previous opinion, Kevin and Sabrina Dahnke were brutally shot and killed in their home. (People v. Jones (Aug. 31, 2007, C048432) [nonpub. opn.] (Jones I).) A jury convicted defendant Christopher Howard Jones of two counts of murder as well as robbery and burglary, and found true charged firearm enhancements and special circumstances. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate sentence of 56 years to life plus two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.
In Jones I, we concluded that the trial court failed to conduct the inquiry required under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). (Jones I, pp. 6-20.) We therefore reversed the judgment with directions to the trial court to conduct a hearing to give defendant a full opportunity to explain why he requested the appointment of new counsel. (Jones I, p. 40.) If the court determined that defendant demonstrated good cause for appointment of new counsel under Marsden, the court was to appoint new counsel and set the case for retrial. (Jones, at p. 40.) However, because we rejected defendants other claims of error, we directed that if the court concluded that good cause was not shown, the court was to reinstate the judgment, striking an erroneously ordered parole revocation fine. (Ibid.)