CA Unpub Decisions

The minor, N.H., appeals from the juvenile courts order continuing his wardship after finding he had committed several misdemeanor offenses. Court accept the Peoples concession the court miscalculated the minors maximum period of physical confinement and affirm the order as modified.

Appellant Michael Turner was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of arson of an inhabited building in violation of Penal Code[1]section 451, subdivision (b), one count of first degree burglary in violation of section 459 and one count of making terrorist threats in violation of section 422. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of 23 years, 4 months in state prison. Both the crimes and convictions occurred in 2000. Appellant appealed from the conviction, and also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and affirmed the judgment of conviction. The California Supreme Court denied appellant's subsequent petition for review. His claims involved ineffective assistance of counsel.

L. H. was declared a ward of the juvenile court and ordered into the camp community placement program. On appeal, L.H. contends the courts finding he had committed attempted first degree burglary was not supported by sufficient evidence. Court affirm the order.

Appellant Jesus G. (Jesus) is the father of A.G. (A.), a seven year old boy. Since 2000, Jesus has been co-habiting with Lorena I. (Mother) and Mothers two older children a girl, S., and S.s older brother, S.I. A., born in 2001, is the sole biological child of both Jesus and Mother.
The jurisdictional order is reversed with respect to Jesuss biological son A., only.

Following a jury trial, defendant and appellant Roberto Cordova (defendant) was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, a baseball bat. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it refused to instruct the jury on self-defense. We hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct on self-defense because the evidence did not warrant such an instruction. Court therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

Luis Mario Guerrero appeals from an order revoking then reinstating probation under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Pen. Code, 1210, 1210.1), following his admission that he was in violation of probation. Previously he pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on three years formal probation under the terms of Proposition 36. The order is affirmed.

M.M. appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders in the dependency proceedings concerning his daughter M. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Daniel Joseph Smith (defendant) of one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1](count 1) and one count of attempted second degree robbery ( 664/211) (count 2). The jury acquitted defendant of a third charge of second degree robbery (count 3). The jury found true the special allegation with respect to count 1 that defendant personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (b)) and the special allegation with respect to count 2 that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 13 years in state prison. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)requesting that this court review independently the entire appellate record. Court have done so and determined that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff, 511 OFW, L. P., appeals from an order denying a request for injunctive relief. Plaintiff sought to restrain defendant, First Federal Bank of California, from issuing a beneficiary payoff statement. The payoff statement related to a loan secured by commercial property owned by plaintiff. According to plaintiff, the payoff statement contains dollar amounts which exceed the balance owed on the loan. Plaintiff contends that defendant improperly included in the payoff statement attorney fees and costs arising out of a separate action entitled Stephen M. Gaggero v. First Federal Bank of California (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BC257767) (the Gaggero litigation). We conclude the order must be affirmed. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction request because plaintiff has an adequate legal remedy, Court affirm the order under review.

On December 18, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officer Samuel Chin observed Alan Donaldson on a closed circuit television system as he poured something from an amber-colored prescription medicine bottle into the hand of another male, and then took money from the other man. Shortly thereafter, two other officers detained Donaldson and found on his person 82 hydrocodone pills in a medicine bottle, and approximately $2,400 in cash. The trial courts order is affirmed.

In case No. 05F02744, defendant Richard Warren Emory was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, 211, count one)[1]with a true finding he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1), count two) and terrorist threats ( 422, count three). It was also found true that he had sustained a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subds. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). After he was convicted in case No. 05F02744, in case No. 05F06663, defendant pled guilty to a felony failure to appear ( 1320.5) and admitted an enhancement that he was out of custody on a pending felony offense at the time he committed the current felony offense. ( 12022.1.) Defendant appeals these convictions, arguing the court violated his due process rights by permitting evidence of his prior bad acts, committed reversible error by misinstructing on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, and erred in finding his prior conviction in Iowa constituted a serious felony. In supplemental briefing, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction because there was no taking of personal property from the person by force or fear. Court shall affirm.

In 2004, defendant Anthony Blackwell was convicted of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, two counts of assault and two counts of attempted robbery. Two years later, he brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, which was granted in part. As a result of the writ, defendants two attempted robbery convictions were reversed. He was resentenced on the remaining voluntary manslaughter and assault convictions. Defendant appeals from this resentencing, contending the trial courts use of his juvenile adjudications to impose the upper term was unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely)and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [166 L.Ed.2d 856].

A jury convicted defendant Jessica Ann Ellsworth of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459), criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422) and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, 242).[1] The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation. Defendant appeals. She contends insufficient evidence supports her convictions for criminal threats and burglary. Court reject defendants contentions and will affirm the judgment.

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, defendant Tremain Buntun pled no contest to possession of cocaine base for sale in exchange for a state prison sentence of four years with execution suspended and dismissal of the remaining count (sale or transportation of a controlled substance) and allegation (strike prior). The court imposed the midterm of four years, suspended execution and granted probation subject to certain terms and conditions including one year in county jail. Defendant appeals. He contends that the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion. Court disagree and will affirm the judgment.