CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Pramesh Maharaj pled no contest to one count of corporal injury to a spouse (count 2Pen. Code 273.5, subd. (a)).[1] Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant contends his plea was constitutionally defective because it was not entered into freely or voluntarily. In particular, he maintains his plea resulted from the effects of his diabetes medication and the potential threat of the prosecution of his son. We hold the court acted within its discretion in denying his motion and, therefore, affirm the judgment in full.

A jury convicted defendant, Jonathan Adams, of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code 245, subd. (a)(2)),[1]during which he used a handgun ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicted serious bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)), and possession of a firearm by an ex-felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered a strike prior. ( 667, subds. (b)-(i).) He was sentenced to prison for 15 years and appeals claiming the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of third party culpability. Court reject his contention and affirm, while directing the trial court to correct an error in the abstract of judgment.

Defendant Denna Johnson received rent subsidies through a federally funded program administered by the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (the Housing Authority). To receive the subsidies, she was required to periodically disclose certain information under penalty of perjury, including the identity of occupants living in the subsidized residence and whether any occupants had been convicted of violent criminal activity. Based upon the disclosures she made in 2005 and 2006, she was charged with four counts of committing perjury (counts 1, 2, 5, & 6; Pen. Code, 118) and two counts of obtaining aid by misrepresentation (counts 3 & 4; Welf. & Inst. Code, 10980, subd. (c)(2)). On appeal, defendant argues the court erred by: (1) permitting a prosecution witness to testify that she had been previously arrested for assault with a deadly weapon; and (2) allowing a prosecution witness to testify regarding certain out-of-court statements made by defendant. She further contends it was error to instruct the jury with Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CALCRIM Nos. 223, 226, and 302. Because Court find no error, Court affirm the convictions.

This is an appeal from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Patrol Plus, Inc. (hereafter Patrol Plus) and against plaintiffs Jolene Marie Lomeli, Rachel Ann Lomeli, Jose Luis Lomeli III, and Devon Ray Davis, and Rayleen Ann Lomeli, their guardian ad litem (hereafter plaintiffs) on plaintiffs complaint for damages resulting from negligence that caused personal injury. In particular, the minor plaintiffs suffered injuries in a fire that occurred in the afternoon of January 15, 2005, when they were playing in an unlocked storage shed at the Avalon Mobile Home Park, and one of them lit a lighter that ignited model airplane fuel stored in the room. Patrol Plus is a security and patrol company hired by the owner of the mobilehome park to patrol the park three times each day between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Plaintiffs contend there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether Patrol Plus breached its duty of care, and therefore the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment motion. Court disagree, and therefore will affirm.

As incredible as it seems, the issue in this case is about whether a settlement and judgment are void because of a one-day discrepancy. Defendants Irma Linda Diaz and Joe Diaz own and operate an adult-entertainment business, Diamonds Gentlemens Club, in the City of Fontana. The city sued them for a zoning violation and nuisance abatement.
The Diazes and the city settled the case and the trial court ordered the settlement to be enforced, allowing them to operate the business for three years from March 3, 2008. On appeal, the Diazes contend the judgment is void because the three year period should have been from March 4, 2008. Court reject this trivial claim and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant, Gregory Thomas, of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)).[1] In bifurcated proceedings, he admitted having suffered a prior violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 ( 667.5, subd. (a)) and a prior conviction for which he served a prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to prison for two years and appeals making a number of contentions. Because we reverse his conviction due to the erroneous exclusion of evidence, Court need not address his remaining contentions.

A jury found defendant Antonio Valentino Ramirez guilty of a single count of possessing ammunition while prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, a felony. (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b).)[1] Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on additional allegations that he had five prison priors ( 667.5, subd. (b)), and the trial court found all five prison priors true. Defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison, consisting of the upper term of three years for his current conviction plus consecutive four 1-year terms for four of his five prison priors. At sentencing, the court said it was imposing the upper term on defendants current conviction based on his recidivism and prior convictions and for this reason struck the prison prior resulting from defendants eldest conviction, namely, a December 20, 2000, conviction in case No. FRE04309. ( 1170, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.420(c) [court may rely on fact of enhancement in imposing upper term only if it has discretion to strike the punishment for the enhancement and does so].)[2] The court observed that the four remaining prison priors upon which it was imposing one-year terms were based on convictions that defendant suffered in 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2006. However, it appears from the record that defendants 2001 conviction in case No. FRE04323 was incurred on December 20, 2000, the same date as his conviction in case No. FRE04309.

Defendant and appellant Gregory Adam Dunn appeals his jury conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.6, subd. (a).)[1] He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1, as well as his motion for a new trial pursuant to Penal Code section 1181, subdivision (6). Defendant also argues the trial court erred when it stayed enhancements for a prior conviction and a prior prison term. In addition, defendant complains that the courts minute order of sentencing incorrectly includes a restitution fine of $100 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).

Appellant John Ritchie Parrish (father) and respondent Joyce Rae Parrish (mother) are the parents of two minor children, H.B. (the daughter) and J.T (the son). Father appeals orders of the family law court establishing child support, arrearages, and ordering him to pay attorney fees, as well as orders precluding father from contacting mother and any of the childrens schools, doctors and therapists, and from accessing any records concerning the location of the childrens residences, schools, doctors and therapists. Court affirm the child support order, but reverse the attorney fees order and the protective orders, and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant Robert Charles Keller was charged with committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).)
Defendants case was tried to a jury. After the jury deliberated, they announced they were deadlocked and that further deliberations would not be fruitful. The trial court declared a mistrial. The division was 11 to one in favor of a not guilty verdict. One of the jurors indicated difficulty with the intent element; while a second wondered why persons that should have been witnesses were left out. The trial court stated it would dismiss the case, but would consult with counsel first. After a recess following the release of the jurors, the trial court stated, Its the Courts opinion that the case should be dismissed, and over the strenuous objections of PlaintiffPeoples Counsel, the District Attorney, the Court now dismisses the action in the interest of justice.

Defendant and appellant M.M. (minor), was found by the juvenile court to have committed grand theft by taking property from the person of another (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c)) and was placed on probation. He challenges one of his probation conditions on multiple grounds. Court modify the probation condition and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Ramon Velardes Gomez appeals his jury conviction for one count of failing to register as a sex offender within five days of changing his residence (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)) and three counts of failing to update his registration as a sex offender within five days of his birthday (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(D)). Court affirm.

Appellant R.E. (Father) is the biological and presumed father of D.R. (born August 2007). Father appeals the denial of his request under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to change an order placing D.R. with a concurrent planning family rather than paternal relatives.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition, the response filed by the real parties in interest and the reply. We have determined that the resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)