CA Unpub Decisions

After a plea agreement, appellant was sentenced to a total prison term of seven years and eight months for one count of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a))[1] plus an enhancement for personal use of a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a) and an additional one-third of a consecutive midterm for vehicle taking. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, he appeals and asks this court to examine the relevant portions of the record and determine if there are any issues that are deserving of further briefing. Court have done so, find none, and hence affirm the trial courts judgment and the sentence it imposed.

L. H. appeals from a disposition entered after the juvenile court found true allegations that he had committed several different criminal violations. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
The disposition is affirmed.

Beal Xavier Hickman pled no contest to a single count of felony vandalism under Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court placed him on felony probation conditioned upon his serving one year in the county jail, with probation to terminate upon the completion of that term. The court denied appellant presentence credits because the time he spent in custody before sentencing was attributable to a parole hold/parole violation. Appellant filed a notice of appeal based on [the] denial of credits concurrent with his parole violation. Court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues, but has asked this court to independently review the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Court affirm.

Respondents Wayne Cottrell and Sharon Cottrell move this court for an order dismissing the appeal filed by appellant Skye Nickell, on the ground that the appeal is not timely pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(2). Because we conclude that the appeal is not timely, we shall exercise our inherent power to dismiss the appeal.

Ruben Dixon appeals from the judgment entered after he was convicted of attempted first degree murder. Court modify the abstract of judgment to correct certain clerical sentencing errors, but otherwise affirm, holding that admitting evidence of his gang membership was harmless error and that he received adequate notice of a personal firearm use sentence enhancement.

Elman Stanley Trujillo appeals the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of voluntary manslaughter in which he personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon and leaving the scene of an accident. (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1); Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Trujillo to a term of 13 years in state prison. Court reject Trujillos claim of prosecutorial misconduct and affirm the judgment.

Steve Sfera appeals his convictions of robbery, burglary, and petty theft with a prior conviction. Court reverse the petty theft conviction but conclude that substantial evidence supports the robbery and burglary convictions and affirm as to those.

Appellant was charged with two counts of second degree commercial burglary (counts 1 & 3, Pen. Code, 459),[1]two counts of petty theft with a prior (counts 2 & 4, 484, subd. (a)/666) and one count of failure to appear while on bail (count 5, 1320.5). The information alleged that the offense was committed while appellant was released from custody ( 12022.1, subd. (b)), that he had been convicted of three serious or violent felony offenses ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and served three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to reduce his felonies to misdemeanors or refusing to strike a prior conviction. He further asserts that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Court affirm.

On July 11, 2007, appellant pleaded no contest to obstructing a telephone line. He had damaged a phone when his girlfriend tried to make a 911 call. (Pen. Code, 591.)[1] The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted appellant five years probation (case No. 1275494). The court indicated that, if appellant successfully completed a batterer's program and did not commit a new offense or violate probation, it would reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor. ( 17, subd. (b).) The court prohibited appellant from contacting the victim (his girlfriend) or their children.

Michael Eugene Rizzo appeals from the judgment following his entry of a guilty plea to possession of heroin and his admission that he had a prior strike conviction and had served a prior prison term. (Health & Saf., 11350, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 667, subds. (c) & (e); 1170.12, subds. (a) & (e); 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court struck the prior felony strike conviction and prior prison term allegations. It denied probation, sentenced appellant to the mid term of 2 years in state prison and awarded him 309 days of presentence custody credits. The judgment is affirmed.

At the time of trial, Floran Frank was 83 years old and had lived in her Burbank home since 1960. She had acquired the home as her separate property in or about 1970, when she was divorced from her former husband. Ms. Frank was intimately involved with the local community; she had been president of the Burbank Rancho Homeowners Association since around 1968. Her home was adjacent to Griffith Park and its 57 miles of riding trails where Ms. Frank rode her horses. Her property was also in easy driving distance to the Los Angeles Zoo. Ms. Frank had been a docent at the zoo for 40 years. There was no evidence of infirmities in Ms. Franks physical or mental condition. Ms. Frank was fully competent to look after her own affairs. The February 22, 2008 order is affirmed.

William Thomas Gimbel appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to kidnapping (Pen. Code, 207, subd. (a))[1]and his admission to a prior serious felony strike, witness intimidation. ( 136.1, subd. (c)(1), 667, subds. (b) (i), 1192.7.) The trial court sentenced appellant to six years in state prison. Court affirm.

Celeste Ann Morgan appeals from an injunction that prohibits her from harassing Janhett Taylor Windglows. (Code Civ. Proc., 527.6 (section 527.6).) She contends (1) her right to due process was violated because the court failed to "maintain and receive" her legal documents and did not permit her to make a telephonic appearance at the injunction hearing, (2) venue was improper because neither party resided in California, and (3) Windglows failed to establish that Morgan's conduct met the "reasonable fear" standard in section 527.6. Court affirm.

Mark Anthony Taravella appeals the judgment (order revoking probation) entered following Taravellas plea of no contest to possession for sale of a controlled substance and his admission he personally was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offense. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351; Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c).) The trial court sentenced Taravella to a term of five years in state prison. Court reject the contention raised on appeal by Taravella and affirm the judgment.