CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Robert Curtis Stinnett of violating Penal Code sections 666 (petty theft with a prior)[1]and 488 (petty theft). He was sentenced to an aggravated term of three years, plus four one-year enhancements that resulted from four prior convictions, each resulting in prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)), for a total term of seven years.
We agree with Stinnett that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte with three separate instructions (Judicial Council of Cal. Crim. Jury Instns. (2006-2007), CALCRIM Nos. 358, 359, 1800). Court also agree that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his cross-examination of Stinnett by asking Stinnett if other witnesses, whose testimony contradicted Stinnetts testimony, were lying. We affirm the judgment, however, because these errors, either singularly or together, did not result in a reasonable probability that Stinnett would have obtained a better result if he had received an error free trial.

On December 13, 2007, defendant Lanier Pierre Turner was stopped for driving a vehicle without license plates and with a cracked windshield. Defendant admitted that he was on parole. A search of the car revealed a pipe for smoking methamphetamine and a baggie with 0.56 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12 [for a 1991 Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a) conviction]), in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence of the low term of 16 months, doubled for the strike prior. The court granted the prosecutors motion to dismiss the remaining count and allegations in the interest of justice.

A jury convicted Michael Enrico Person of residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459/460)[1]in the first degree. In a bifurcated proceeding, Person admitted he was on bail status at the time of the burglary ( 12022.1, subd. (b)), and he had a prison prior, several serious felony and strike priors ( 667.5, subd. (b), 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 1170.12). The court sentenced Person to an aggregate term of 20 years in prison. Person's sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his poverty to show he committed the burglary. Court affirm the judgment.

Terrance J., a resident of Alabama, appeals a judgment declaring his minor son, Jaheim B., a dependent of the juvenile court and removing Jaheim from his custody. Terrance contends: (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, 3400 et seq.) and should have declined to exercise jurisdiction. Court conclude the court properly exercised its jurisdiction and accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Juan Manuel Rojas appeals his conviction for forcible rape, rape in concert and unlawful sexual intercourse involving three victims. Court agree that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for rape in concert. Court otherwise affirm the judgment and remand for resentencing.

Defendant Mariano Diaz, Jr., was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and numerous enhancements were found true. He was also convicted of two counts of assault with a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to prison for a total term of 75 years to life. He appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support the jurys findings that he premeditated and deliberated the attempted murders and the trial court erred in its imposition of sentence. He also argues that his sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, particularly because he was only 17 years old when the crimes were committed. Except to correct the base sentence ordered, as conceded by respondent, Court affirm.

On October 19, 2007, appellant, Abel Ramos, was charged in an information with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, count one) and maintaining a place for the use or sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11366, count two). The judgment is affirmed.

D. A. (D.), the appellant, was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (Division of Juvenile Justice) after he admitted he committed a forcible lewd act against a child under the age of 14. He appeals, claiming the juvenile court abused its discretion because it rejected less restrictive alternatives without substantial evidence they would be inadequate. Court affirm the order of the juvenile court.

A modification decision.

Aaron Glenn Sponseller appeals from a petty theft conviction that resulted in a sentence of three years in state prison.[1] The appeal presents two challenges to the conduct of his trial: First, he asserts that the trial judge misinstructed the jury on the burden of proof. The issue arose in the context of a note from the juror asking for help when they seemed deadlocked. Second, he says that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct in alluding to a comment made by a prospective juror, a former teacher, on voir dire, to the effect that it was her experience that when a person denies a theft allegation, the person ultimately turns out to have been the culprit.
However, even under the federal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test articulated in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, the error was harmless. There was a testifying eyewitness. The trial judge de facto corrected the misconduct when he subsequently instructed the jury to decide the case only on the evidence presented and that closing remarks were not evidence. Sponseller acted like a man who was guilty when he was first arrested, asserting essentially that because he was not found with the loot on him that he could not be lawfully arrested for taking it, which was tantamount to an admission.

Lynn T. (Mother) and Jerry J. (Father) appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to their eight-year-old son, O.J., and seven year old daughter, K.J. Father contends the parental benefit exception found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), should have prevented the termination of his parental rights. Mother argues the court erroneously denied her
section 388 modification petition seeking reunification services. Both parents challenge the courts finding the children were adoptable. Court find the arguments raised lack merit and affirm the juvenile courts order.

C.C. appeals from a juvenile court order summarily denying his Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition. In that petition, C.C. sought an order setting aside the courts prior jurisdiction and disposition orders concerning his two daughters, arguing that he had been given no opportunity to challenge the orders when originally sought since he was not actually notified of the proceedings until after the orders had been issued and claiming he had new evidence suggesting that the factual allegations supporting the orders were untrue. The court denied the petition on two grounds; first, because it was untimely, and second because it failed to state a prima facie case for a change in the prior orders. The order is consequently reversed, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to hold a hearing on C.C.s petition.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, on September 17, 2007, defendant Juan Ortiz pleaded no contest to five counts of lewd and lascivious act on a child under 14 years by force, violence, duress, menace or fear. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1).) In exchange for his no contest pleas, defendant was promised his sentence would be 30 years in state prison (top/bottom). Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (87 S.Ct. 1396), we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there are no arguable issues on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.) We have included information about . . . aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Id. at p. 112.) In addition, we have described defendant's contentions. We will explain why Court have rejected them. (Id. at p.113.)

Appellant, Manuel Cardona, pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377) and admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)) after his motion to suppress was denied. On January 29, 2008, the court sentenced him to a 32-month term, the mitigated term of 16 months doubled to 32 months because of the three strikes law allegations. On appeal, Cardona contends the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Court affirm.