CA Unpub Decisions

Oscar Gonzalez Chirino appeals the denial of a motion to set aside a plea of no contest to possession for sale of a controlled substance on the ground he was not properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea. Court affirm the trial courts denial of the motion.

This appeal has been taken from a trial court order that modified appellant James B. Kisiels child support obligations. He contends that the court erred in determining the parties respective earning capacities when it calculated the amount of support. Court affirm.

Lino Rubalcava Jimenez appeals from a judgment upon his plea of no contest to possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351). Defendant also admitted that he suffered a prior conviction of Health and Safety Code section 11378. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Defendant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the sentencing. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.

Defendant Jorge Luis Cabrales was convicted by a jury of robbery in violation of section 211 of the Penal Code[1]and sentenced to a term of three years in state prison. Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence secured during an investigatory detention. Second, defendant claims that the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2007-2008), CALCRIM Nos. 200, 220, 222, and 223. As will be explained more fully below, defendant is incorrect on both counts. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant challenges his upper-term sentence on one of two felony counts, generally claiming the sentence violates his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Court affirm.

Convicted of petty theft with priors (case No. 07F10151), defendant Thomas Edward Kelley appeals claiming the trial court erred in including fines and fees in the sentencing minutes and abstract of judgment that were not orally pronounced by the court in defendants presence. The People concede the error and seek remand. The record establishes the following: Consequently, Court accept the Peoples concession that in the drug case, No. 07F08108, the court clerk twice wrongly inserted additional fines and fees in written minute orders in contravention of this courts ruling in People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, and remand for resentencing.

Granted three years of probation after a plea of no contest to one count of issuing insufficient-funds checks (Pen. Code, 476a, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code) and ordered inter alia to pay a probation supervision fee of $720.00 ( 1203.1b), defendant Heather Nicole Booze contends that the matter must be remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on her ability to pay the fee or to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of such hearing. Court agree and shall remand the matter.

A jury convicted defendant David Louis Fulton of evading an officer with willful or wanton disregard (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a); count I) and driving on a suspended license, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, 14601.1, subd. (a); count II). In bifurcated proceedings, defendant waived his right to a jury determination and entered a negotiated admission to a prior prison term allegation (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations. Court agree that the record is ambiguous with respect to the fees and fines imposed on count II and will remand for clarification. Court reject defendants remaining contentions and will otherwise affirm the judgment.

Defendant Larry Wayne Bonner pled guilty to three felonies: evading a police officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2; count 1); leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a); count 2); and resisting a police officer by force or threat of violence (Pen. Code, 69; count 5). He also admitted having a prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, 211, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Finally, he agreed to waive any potential issue under Penal Code section 654 (section 654) as to counts 1 and 5. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by not staying sentence on count 2 under section 654. We requested supplemental briefing on whether defendant could raise this contention without having obtained a certificate of probable cause in light of the recent opinion of our Supreme Court in People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374 (Cuevas). Court now conclude that he may not do so. Therefore, court dismiss the appeal.

Samuel S. was declared a dependent of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (c), of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1]on the basis of an amended petition which alleged that Samuel was suffering serious emotional damage, including but not limited to, severe anxiety evidenced by such symptoms as the minor striking himself in the face, headaches, and nausea, as a result of the actions of the minors mother. The specific actions of the mother alleged to be causing Samuel to suffer serious emotional damage are as follows: The mother has made numerous false claims to school officials, child protection services and medical professionals that the minor has been physically abused by the father, including abuse resulting in concussions and other serious head injuries. Numerous medical examinations have not found the minor sustained any such serious head injuries, or other physical injury, attributable to abuse by the father. The minor is aware of the allegations by the mother as the mother has made these claims in the minors presence. The mother had the minor voluntarily admitted to an inpatient psychiatric facility [on] February 28, 2008, claiming the minor was hearing voices. Despite a finding that the minor was not hearing voices, but rather was suffering from anxiety and repetitive thoughts, the mother has continued to make statements to the minor about him hearing voices. Samuel was placed in the custody of his father, Scott S. Wendy S., Samuels mother, appeals. She contends that the original and amended petitions do not allege facts sufficient to bring Samuel within section 300, subdivision (c), and that she was not provided adequate notice of the factual allegations leveled against her. Court disagree and will affirm the judgment.

On November 8, 2006, defendant Darrell Lee Hampsmire and his estranged wife argued. She told defendant to leave; he refused. She attempted to call the police, and defendant took the phone from her hands and unplugged it. Defendant then pushed the victim to the ground. While on her back, defendant put his forearm against the victims throat, making it difficult for her to breathe. The police arrived shortly thereafter, responding to a 911 hang up call. Defendant was arrested and booked into the Yolo County Jail.
The judgment is affirmed.

Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers) appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate its bond. Bankers contends the trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirements for a bail forfeiture. (Pen. Code, 1305, subd. (a) ( 1305(a).) Court agree with Bankers' contention and reverse the order.

1560 N. Magnolia Ave., LLC, doing business as the Dj Vu Love Boutique (Dj Vu), appeals a judgment in favor of the County of San Diego (the County) on its complaint for injunctive relief and civil penalties for Dj Vu's violation of a former ordinance regulating adult businesses, and against Dj Vu on its cross-complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Dj Vu contends the trial court erred by rejecting its facial challenge to the ordinance based on its definition of an adult business as one that devoted a "significant or substantial portion" of its stock-in-trade or interior display space to adult items, or derived a "significant or substantial portion" of its revenues from such items. (San Diego County Ord. No. 9469, amending former 1110 (hereafter 1110).) Dj Vu asserts section 1110 was unconstitutionally vague because the "significant or substantial portion" language provides neither adequate notice to those subject to its restrictions nor adequate guidelines for enforcement officers. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted George Robert Jenkins of petty theft (Pen. Code, 484, subd. (a), 488) and he admitted having a prior theft-related conviction (id., 666). He also pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a hypodermic needle or syringe (Bus. & Prof. Code, 4140) and providing false information to a peace officer (Pen. Code, 148.9, subd. (a)). In addition, the trial court found true allegations that Jenkins had five prior prison convictions. (Id., 677.5, subd. (b), 668.) The trial court sentenced Jenkins to seven years in state prison, consisting of the middle term of two years for the petty theft conviction, concurrent terms of 180 days each for the unauthorized possession of a syringe and providing false information convictions, and five consecutive one year terms for the prior prison convictions. Jenkins appeals, arguing his misdemeanor convictions for unauthorized possession of a hypodermic needle or syringe and providing false information to a peace officer should be reversed because his guilty plea was invalid. He also argues the trial court's judgment should be reversed because the evidence against him was obtained during an illegal detention. Court affirm the judgment.