CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Miguel Angel Sevilla was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison following his conviction for first degree murder and personal use of a knife. He contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish first degree murder under either of the theories utilized by the prosecution, premeditation and deliberation, or torture, and (2) the jury was given confusing instructions regarding the effect of provocation on the ability to form premeditation and deliberation. Court find no error and affirm.

Jeffrey Steinberg appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to unlawfully transporting or selling methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Steinberg to the mid-term of three years in prison. Court affirm.

Appellant Amos Lee White was convicted of two counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. He appeals the resentencing hearing that followed this courts second remand for resentencing. We are therefore reviewing the trial courts sentencing determinations for the third time. Our first nonpublished opinion, People v. White (B185003), was filed on September 12, 2006(White I). Our second nonpublished opinion, People v. White (B196920), was filed on December 3, 2007 (White II). Court have previously granted judicial notice of the records on the two prior appeals.

In this juvenile dependency case, Father and Mother contend that there was insufficient evidence to justify termination of their parental rights to their four year old son, J.G. Court find no error and affirm.

Defendant Mesino Eduviges Diaz was tried by jury and convicted of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a),)[1]assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), and criminal threats ( 422). With respect to the attempted murder and criminal threats, the jury also found that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of the crimes ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant waived his right to jury trial on an allegation that he had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law, and following a bifurcated hearing on the issue, the court found this allegation to be true. Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing a concurrent, rather than a stayed, sentence on his criminal threats conviction. As will be explained more fully below, Court modify the judgment to stay defendants sentence on the criminal threats conviction and affirm the judgment as modified.

A jury found defendant Martha Alene Marrs guilty of attempting to kidnap a child under age 14 and obstructing a peace officer. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on five years probation. Defendant appeals, contending: (1) the People presented insufficient evidence of attempted kidnapping; and (2) the court erred in failing to instruct on attempted false imprisonment as a lesser included offense. Disagreeing with defendant, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Herman Ray Robinson pled no contest to carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)),[1]attempted murder ( 664/187, subd. (a)), and second degree robbery ( 211/212.5, subd. (c)). Defendant also pled no contest to special allegations that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the carjacking and robbery ( 12022.53, subd. (b)), and that he committed the robbery with the specific intent to benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In exchange for his plea, the People agreed to dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement allegations, and defendant was promised a determinate term of 25 years in state prison. Following an unsuccessful motion to withdraw his plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years in state prison and imposed various other orders, including direct victim restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f).
Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to clarify that the victim restitution orders imposed in this case are joint and several obligations shared by his codefendants. Finding no merit in this argument, Court affirm the judgment.

Donald P., father of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court entered at the six-month review hearing continuing the minor in foster care and ordering further reunification services.[1] (Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] 366.21, subd. (e), 395.) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the findings that reasonable services were provided to him and that there would be a substantial risk of detriment to the minors physical or emotional well-being if returned to appellants custody. Court affirm.

Plaintiffs Ross Shade and his wife, Mary C. Shade, filed their complaint in propria persona for medical malpractice against defendant United Health Systems, Inc., claiming defendant was responsible for personal injuries Mary suffered while hospitalized in May 2003 at a convalescent hospital owned and operated by defendant. Defendant moved successfully for summary judgment of Marys claim on the ground (among others) that the action is time-barred and, thereafter, the court entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiffs appeal; Court affirm.

Appellant Isidro Vasquez was convicted of first degree murder. The prosecution asserted appellant drove two fellow gang members to an alley, the two gang members got out of appellant's car, shot William Robinson to death and returned to appellant's car. According to the prosecution, appellant then drove the two shooters a short distance to another car, the shooters got in the second car and both cars left the area.
Appellant was charged in an information with first degree murder. (Pen. Code,[1] 187.) The information, as amended, alleged gang and firearm enhancements. ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1), and 12022.53, subds. (d), (e) (1).) At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from eyewitnesses who were at or near the scene of events preceding and following the Robinson shooting and from police officers who had lengthy experience with appellant and with gang activity.

A jury convicted Francisco Javier Ramirez of animal cruelty. (Pen. Code, 597, subd. (a).) The jury also found true allegations Ramirez had personally used a firearm to commit the offense. (Id., 12022.5, subd. (a).) In a separate proceeding, the trial court found Ramirez's prior juvenile adjudication for robbery qualified as a prior strike conviction. (Id., 667, subds. (b)-(i).) The trial court sentenced Ramirez to 14 years in prison, consisting of the middle term of two years for animal cruelty, doubled to four years for the prior strike conviction, plus the upper term of 10 years for the firearm enhancement. Court affirm the judgment.

Three plaintiffs[1] filed a class action complaint against Networkers International, LLC (Networkers), alleging violations of state laws governing overtime pay, rest breaks, and meal breaks. Plaintiffs moved to certify the class, but the court denied the motion, concluding plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show common factual and legal questions would predominate over individual issues. Plaintiffs appeal. Court conclude the court's ruling was not an abuse of discretion, and affirm the order.

M.X. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
The appeal is dismissed.

W.E. seeks writ review of juvenile court orders denying reunification services regarding her daughter, Ashley E., and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. W. argues that the court erred in denying her reunification services. Court deny the petition.