CA Unpub Decisions

Timothy Terrones (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of petty theft with priors (Pen. Code, 666).[1] Defendant admitted five prior convictions for purposes of proving his petty theft with priors charge. The trial court found to be true the allegation that defendant had suffered a prior felony strike conviction within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of four years. Defendant contends that the trial court failed to advise him of his constitutional rights prior to accepting his admission of the prior theft related offenses, and reversal is therefore required under the totality of the circumstances test.

A jury convicted defendant Marsi Patricia Torres of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)), finding that she discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subd. (d)) and committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).[1] The jury also convicted defendant of shooting at an inhabited motor vehicle ( 246) and carrying a loaded firearm ( 12031, subd. (a)(1)), and found a gang enhancement allegation true as to both charges ( 186.22, subds. (b)(4) & (d), respectively). On the attempted murder count, the court sentenced defendant to state prison for a total term of 50 years to life. The court imposed a concurrent two-year term on the carrying a loaded firearm count, and a five-year term (stayed under 654) on the remaining count. Defendant appeals, contending: (1) the trial court erred in overruling her hearsay objections to certain evidence used to prove the gang enhancements, and (2) the court erred in refusing defendants request that the jury be instructed on imperfect self defense. Court
affirm.

Defendant Rene Edgar Lorenzo appeals from the judgment of conviction following a non-jury trial. He contends that his case must be remanded for resentencing because the trial court erred in imposing fully consecutive sentences under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d), on his sex crime convictions.[1] According to defendant, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the sex crimes constituted separate occasions as required by 667.6, subdivision (d). We disagree that, as a matter of law, the sex counts constitute only a single occasion. We conclude, however, that the case must be remanded for resentencing, because the courts explanation of its sentencing under subdivision (d) is inadequate. On remand, if the court decides to sentence under subdivision (d) on any of the sex crime counts, it must give a factual explanation for its finding of a separate occasion for each such count. If the court decides to impose discretionary fully consecutive terms on the sex crime counts under section 667.6, subdivision (c), the court must provide a statement of reasons for its decision to apply 667.6, subdivision (c), rather than the consecutive sentencing scheme of section 1170.1. (See People v. Irvin (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1067-1072 (Irvin); see also People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 347-349.) The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Appellant John Krasnow was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of selling, transporting or offering to sell a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). Appellant admitted the truth of the allegations that he had suffered four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and a prior conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The court sentenced appellant to a total term of 10 years in state prison, consisting of the mid-term of four years for the current conviction plus three one-year terms for the Penal Code section 667.5 allegations and one three-year term for the Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 allegation.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in denying his Wheeler[1]motion and that the trial court's imposition of a 10 year term was an improper punishment for appellant's decision to exercise his right to a jury trial. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.

Gregory Todd Pinkett and Roy L. Johns appeal from their conviction of selling cocaine base. We affirm, holding that the jury instruction on evaluating circumstantial evidence was proper, there was sufficient evidence that Johns was involved in the drug sales transaction, and the trial court properly reviewed and evaluated the discoverability of certain citizen complaints against the arresting officers.

Defendant Gustavo Rodriguez (Rodriguez) appeals the judgment entered against him on a breach of contract claim brought by the City of Monterey Park (city). We conclude that the issues Rodriguez raises on appeal were resolved against him in a prior workers compensation proceeding, and thus Rodriguez is collaterally estopped from raising them here. Court therefore affirm.

Angel Martinez Reyna was convicted by plea of the transportation or sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd.(a)) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code 11359). He claims that, at the time of taking his pleas, the trial court did not fully advise him of the possible immigration consequences. Appellant argues that, although the court advised him that his plea could result in his being deported, it did not inform him that he might be forever barred from obtaining lawful admission to the United States. He filed a motion to vacate his convictions so he could withdraw his guilty pleas. (Pen. Code, 1016.5.) The trial court denied his request. Court affirm.

Jon Charles Holm appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury on two counts of committing a lewd act upon a 15-year-old child more than 10 years younger than appellant. (Pen.Code, 288, subd. (c)(1).) He was sentenced to prison for the upper term of three years on count 1 plus a consecutive sentence of eight months (one third of the two-year middle term) on count 2. Court affirm.

Alexis Burban appeals from an order of restitution following her no contest plea to residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) Pursuant to her negotiated plea, she was sentenced to prison for the low term of two years. She contends the attorneys fees incurred to have her removed as co-trustee of a trust are not fees incurred for the collection of economic losses and, therefore, are not recoverable as victim restitution. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the order.

Perry Wong (appellant) appeals from a final judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (respondent) on appellants breach of contract claim against respondent. Appellant also appeals from an order granting respondents motion for attorney fees. Court affirm the judgment and the order.

Benito Gonzalez Arteaga appeals the judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court placed him on three years summary probation subject to the condition that he serve 90 days in county jail. He contends that he was unlawfully detained by law enforcement and that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the heroin he was convicted of possessing. Court affirm.

Mother M.R. appeals from the trial courts denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition.[1] The petition asked the court, inter alia, to reinstate family reunification services with regard to five of mothers children: daughters R.F. (born November 1990), N.R. (born January 1995), and O.R. (born May 2002), and sons A.R. (born August 1996) and K.R. (born September 1999). Court affirm.

Joseph A. (father) appeals from the judgment of February 26, 2008, declaring his seven year old daughter, C., a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. He contends substantial evidence does not support the sustained jurisdictional allegations or dispositional order removing her from his custody. As substantial evidence supports the findings, Court affirm the judgment and orders.

Plaintiff Stancy Nesby (plaintiff) appeals from a summary judgment in this action against the City of Berkeley (the City) and four individual police officers in connection with three investigatory detentions and two arrests on warrants erroneously issued in her name. Court affirm the judgment, as we conclude that the officers had a reasonable suspicion to detain plaintiff and had no duty to look beyond these facially valid warrants. Moreover, as plaintiff has not produced evidence of racial motivation or excessive force, summary judgment also was proper on her remaining causes of action.