CA Unpub Decisions

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of cohabitant abuse with the understanding that the maximum sentence would be no more than one year in jail and that the remaining charged offenses, two counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and two counts of criminal threats, would be dismissed. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(1), 422.) The trial court sentenced appellant to 180 days in jail. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for an independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has not referred this court to any possible, but not arguable, issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396].) On October 16, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit personally any arguments that he wanted us to consider. To date, Court have received no response from appellant. Court affirm.

The secured transactions provisions of the California Uniform Commercial Code and the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated (NRS) provide a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of security interests in personal property and fixtures. (U. Com. Code com. 1, 23B pt. 2 Wests Ann. Com. Code (2009 supp.) foll. 9101, p. 2; Official com. 1, NRS (2008) foll. 104.9101.) Plaintiff Stephen J. Kennedy (Kennedy) lent three Nevada limited liability companies, American Staffing, LLC, American Indo Staffing, LLC, and American Asian Staffing, LLC (collectively, American Staffing), $150,000 during 2003. In return, American Staffing assigned to Kennedy its right to payments from defendant HealthOne Staffing (HealthOne). The trial court determined that the assignment was covered by the secured transactions provisions of the California Uniform Commercial Code, and Kennedy was required to file a financing statement to perfect his interest in the assignment. Because Kennedy had failed to do so, the court entered a judgment in favor of HealthOne at the conclusion of Kennedys case in chief. Court conclude the court erred, reverse the judgment, and remand for further proceedings.

Penal Code section 1054.9[1]allows persons subject to a sentence of death or life in prison without the possibility of parole to file a motion for postconviction discovery to facilitate preparation of a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate judgment. Petitioner (the People, represented by the District Attorney of Contra Costa County) challenges the respondent superior courts discovery order, contending that section 1054.9 is an invalid amendment to the criminal discovery statutes enacted by Proposition 115 in 1990. Court conclude section 1054.9 did not amend those statutes and affirm the superior courts order.

Appellant B.S. (mother) appeals following an order terminating her parental rights. She argues that the juvenile court erred when it denied her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, and that the court impermissibly delegated too much discretion to respondent Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) to arrange visitation between her and her son S.E. Court disagree and affirm.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Appellant Hector Torres appeals following his conviction by a jury of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189)[1]with findings that he personally used a firearm ( 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), & 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)). Contrary to appellants contentions: (1) his conviction is supported by substantial evidence from four credible eyewitnesses; (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by improperly eliciting gang evidence; (3) the court properly admitted only excerpts of recorded statements; (4) the court properly denied a request for an Evidence Code section 402 hearing; (5) the court properly admitted evidence of the name of appellants party crew, the 12th Place Assassins; (6) the court properly excluded irrelevant bad character evidence of a witness; (7) defense counsels assistance was not rendered constitutionally ineffective by not objecting to evidence of appellants jailhouse assault on a witness; (8) the court properly instructed the jury on the doctrine of natural and probable consequences (CALJIC No. 3.02); and (9) cumulative error did not deprive appellant of a fair trial. Court thus affirm.

Paris T. Davidson (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his conviction of the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a))[1]with trial court findings as to the truth of the prior theft-related conviction allegations ( 666.5). The trial court sentenced him to a term of three years in state prison.

He contends that: (1) the trial court improperly denied his Courts motion for a continuance to secure new retained counsel (People v. Courts (1985) 37 Cal.3d 784 (Courts)); (2) there was Marsden error (People v.Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden)); and (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his Castro motion to exclude impeachment with several of his prior felony convictions (People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 312 (Castro)). Court affirm the judgment.

Shortly before trial, defendant asked the trial court to disqualify plaintiffs counsel from further participation in this case. The grounds for the motion were that plaintiffs counsel had a secret, unauthorized 27 minute telephone conversation with defense counsels client and key trial witness, Jane Cleghorn, in violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court denied the motion to disqualify counsel. Court affirm.

In the case from which he appeals, Luis Alberto Palos entered a negotiated plea of no contest to a charge of grand theft auto. In conformity with the plea agreement, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for three years. Appellants plea was based on a September 21, 2006 traffic stop, during which appellant admitted to officers he was driving a stolen vehicle. Appellant was also found to be in possession of two shaved keys.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Raymond Suero-Peralta, also known as Frank Quintana, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis filed on January 23, 2008. That petition followed numerous other unsuccessful pleadings that appellant filed regarding this case, Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BA001090. For convenience, we will refer to that case as the Los Angeles case. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Appellant was notified that he could file his own brief and has done so. Court agree with the reasoning in Judge Ryans order, based on the record we have previously summarized. We are satisfied that appellants counsel on appeal has fully complied with his responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 276; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted Richard Urquiza of second degree robbery based upon an October 3, 2007 incident in which he approached Mauricio Alas as he sat in a truck in a parking lot at night. Appellant tapped on the window with a gun, demanded money, and repeatedly struck Alas on the head with the gun until Alas dropped his wallet and mobile phone. Appellants accomplice grabbed the wallet and phone and the men fled. The jury acquitted appellant of an aggravated assault charge and found that firearm-use allegations were not true. The trial court sentenced appellant to three years in prison. The judgment is affirmed.

Valerie Holbert appeals from the judgment following her plea of no contest to count 1, sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a))[1]and count 2, possession of cocaine base for sale ( 11351.5). Rather, the trial court noted that appellant had a half hour left before curfew and rejected as not credible her testimony that she would get into a strangers car for a one block ride to the shelter. The judgment is affirmed.