CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Edwin Acosta of attempted robbery, with a finding that he had personally used a firearm during the commission of the offense. The trial court sentenced Acosta to state prison for two years (mid-term) on his attempted robbery conviction, plus ten years for the firearm finding. Court affirm.

L. C. (father) appeals from the May 5, 2008 judgment declaring his five-year-old son and one-year-old twins dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. He contends substantial evidence does not support the sustained jurisdictional allegations or the dispositional orders removing the children from his custody and requiring him to participate in drug treatment. As substantial evidence supports the findings, Court affirm the judgment and orders.

Curtis James Hernandez appeals from the judgment after the trial court found him guilty of second degree robbery of a Subway restaurant. (Pen Code, 211.)[1] The trial court found that appellant had suffered two prior felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)(d)), and granted the prosecution's motion to strike one of the prior strike enhancements. The trial court also found that appellant had suffered two serious felony convictions ( 667. subd. (a)(1)) and four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court struck the prior prison term enhancements and sentenced appellant to 20 years state prison. Appellant was ordered to a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), $150 victim restitution ( 1202. 4, subd. (f)), and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8). The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant and appellant, Tommie Lawson Lynex, appeals from a postjudgment order denying his request under Penal Code section 1054.9 for discovery of evidentiary materials allegedly in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities. Court affirm.

Defendant was convicted of felony transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)), after he was stopped with a pound and a half of marijuana in his truck. The People appeal from an order reducing the conviction for felony transportation of marijuana to misdemeanor possession pursuant to Penal Code section 1181.[1] The Attorney General contends the felony verdict was not contrary to the law or the evidence. The evidence was undisputed that defendant was transporting a pound and a half of marijuana and, since the defense was that some of the marijuana belonged to others, there was no evidence that amount was reasonably necessary for defendants medical needs. There was no evidence that defendant was the primary caregiver for another qualified patient, therefore he was not permitted to transport medical marijuana for another. The verdict was not contrary to the law or evidence, so we reverse the order.
Defendants remedy, if any, lies in an appeal from the judgment.

Defendant Wallace Earl Rogers appeals from the trial courts order extending his commitment under the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessicas Law (SPPCA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600, et seq.) Effective November 8, 2006, the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) was amended by Proposition 83, The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessicas Law. (Prop. 83, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2006).)
Defendant contends the determination that he is a sexually violent predator was made in violation of a prior plea agreement. Court affirm the judgment.

In July 1999, in case No. CRF99-4799, defendant James Douglas Sisemore grabbed J.S., his wife, by the hair, made a fist and threatened to kill her. He pinned her down on a bed and covered her face with a pillow. At one point, he grabbed her underwear and caused an abrasion to her hip. Eventually, he penetrated her with his fingers. Later he kicked her hip, causing her to fall backward and hit her back on a toilet tank and her head on the wall. He put his hands around her neck, threatening to kill her. She had redness to her neck, a bruise on her back, and abrasions to her hip area. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury acquitted defendant Alejandro Quinones Barragan of two counts of attempted murder and one count of arson but found him guilty of arson of an inhabited structure, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia. Defendant was sentenced to five years eight months in state prison. Defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erroneously denied his motion pursuant to Miranda and erred in imposing restitution and court security fees.

The prosecution tried defendant Terry Mitchell on a theory of first degree murder for the stabbing of his girlfriend of five years, but a jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter. He contends the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence he physically abused a former girlfriend and his daughter. Finding no abuse of discretion, Court affirm.

Following a jury trial, appellant Danny Alfred Fontana was convicted of committing sexual offenses against a young woman inside his hotel room and was sentenced to a lengthy prison term under the One Strike and Three Strikes laws. The trial court excluded evidence that the victim had had consensual sexual relations with her boyfriend on the morning of the alleged sexual assault. Because this evidence was relevant and admissible to corroborate appellants version of events and show that injuries attributable to the assault could have been caused by the earlier consensual encounter, and because the record does not establish that this evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, Court reverse.

A jury convicted Timothy Wayne Perry (appellant) of two counts of second degree robbery and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for release of juror identifying information to facilitate investigation of possible juror misconduct. Court affirm.

Appellant Damen Whitehead is the remainder beneficiary of a trust established by his deceased father, Floyd Whitehead.[1] Respondent Lillian Whitehead, who is appellants grandmother, is the trustee and life beneficiary of the trust. Eighteen months after Floyd died, the probate court granted appellants petition to require respondent to file an accounting, and ordered the accounting to be filed within two months. Respondent did not file the accounting until ten months later. Court conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellants motion to set aside the order deeming the objections waived as untimely filed. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying that motion, and remand for further proceedings on the merits of appellants objections.

This appeal arose out of an action filed by the elections official of the City of Vernon, Bruce Malkenhorst, Jr.[1](the Elections Official) for an order pursuant to Elections Code[2]section 2213 directing the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder (the Registrar) of voters to cancel the voter registrations of eight individuals who had registered to vote in the April 2006 Vernon municipal elections. The Elections Official argued that the eight voter registrations should be cancelled because (1) the location they had listed as their residence could not legally serve as a domicile for the purposes of the California Elections Code; and (2) the registrations were made pursuant to a fraudulent scheme purportedly concocted by three other individualsEduardo Olivo, Cris Summers and Albert T. Roblesto take over Vernon. After a bench trial the court concluded that the voters were entitled to judgment because they were legally domiciled in Vernon when they registered to vote and that the Elections Official had not demonstrated that the voters had registered pursuant to an illegal or fraudulent scheme in violation of the California Elections Code. On appeal, the Elections Official claims the court misapplied the law of domicile and erred in concluding that the registration of the voters was not otherwise fraudulent. As Court shall explain, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated the voters had satisfied the requisite domicile requirements under the law and also supported the trial courts legal conclusion the Elections Official failed to prove that the voters were registered in a manner that violated the Elections Code such that their registrations must be cancelled. Accordingly Court affirm.

The Santa Barbara School Districts (referred to as District in the singular) sought to dismiss District high school teacher Matef Harmachis. After a hearing, the Commission on Professional Competence of the District (CPC) ordered his retention. The District petitioned for writ of administrative mandate to overturn the CPC's decision, and appeals from the judgment denying the writ. The District contends the trial court failed to exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the ruling by the CPC, the CPC and trial court abused their discretion, and certain findings were not supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm.