CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the responses thereto. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and furthermore that issuance of an alternative writ of mandate would cause undue delay in resolving the matter. We therefore issue a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Code Civ. Proc., 1088; Palmav.U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178-179; Alexanderv.Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223.)First, we find that Judge Randall White properly struck petitioners statement challenging him for cause. The judges prior rulings do not constitute a valid basis for disqualification.
|
|
The original complaint in this case was filed on June 20, 2006, and alleged that appellant Anthony Marcel Beard committed the following offenses: corporal injury of a spouse (count one); kidnapping (count two); false imprisonment by violence (count 3); criminal threats (count 4); and dissuading a witness by force or threat (count 5). The complaint also charged, with respect to the corporal-injury charge, an infliction-of-great-bodily-injury enhancement (Pen. Code,[1] 12022.7, subd. (e)), and that Beard had suffered five prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the July 3, 2006, preliminary hearing, the victim, Verina Attaway, failed to appear, and the magistrate found insufficient evidence to hold Beard to answer on the great bodily injury enhancement.
Beard was sentenced to a total term of 14 years 8 months in state prison. He was sentenced to the upper term of four years for the corporal injury count, plus four consecutive years for the great-bodily injury enhancement, a consecutive one-year eight month mid term for the kidnapping count, and a concurrent two year mid term for the false-imprisonment count. The sentence included an additional five year consecutive term for the prior convictions. |
|
A jury convicted Todd Steven Parr of burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1]and the murder of Phillip Anthony DeLaCruz ( 187, subd. (a)) while committing the burglary. He was sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole.
He argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutions evidence that his motive for the murder was his dire financial condition, and by failing to impeach a prosecution witness with a felony conviction. He also claims the trial court erred in (1) refusing a requested jury instruction pertaining to a witness who received payment for information about the crime, (2) imposing several enhancements, and (3) imposing a parole revocation restitution fine. We reject each of Parrs arguments with the exception of concluding that the trial court erred in imposing a section 12022.53 enhancement on count 2, burglary, because burglary is not identified in the statute as a crime on which the enhancement may be imposed. |
|
At a joint trial, a jury found Joel Amador Espinoza and Michael Angelo Arreola guilty of first degree murder for the savage beating death of Steven Gonzales, Jr., and the trial court imposed on each a sentence of 25 years to life. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189, 190, subd. (a).) On appeal, Espinoza argues an evidentiary issue, an instructional issue, and an ineffective assistance of counsel issue and, by way of joinder in all but one of Arreolas arguments, incorporates by reference another evidentiary issue, two other instructional issues, and a cumulative prejudice issue. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5).) Court affirm the judgment.
|
|
At a joint trial, a jury found Michael Angelo Arreola and Joel Amador Espinoza guilty of first degree murder for the savage beating death of Steven Gonzales, Jr., and the trial court imposed on each a sentence of 25 years to life. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189, 190, subd. (a).) On appeal, Arreola argues two evidentiary issues, two instructional issues, and a cumulative prejudice issue and, by way of joinder in Espinozas arguments, incorporates by reference another evidentiary issue, another instructional issue, and an ineffective assistance of counsel issue. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5).) Court affirm the judgment.
|
|
Appellants Victor Hugo Herrera-Dominguez (Herrera) and Jesus Ibarra Bueno (Bueno) were convicted of carjacking and robbery. They contend: 1) There is insufficient evidence to support their convictions; 2) the court misinstructed the jury on the prosecutions burden of proof; and 3) the prosecutor further distorted the burden of proof in his closing argument. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
|
|
After the parties waived a jury trial, the court found defendant Robert Spencer guilty of misdemeanor attempted grand theft of a pressure washer (Pen. Code, 664, 487, subdivision (a)),[1] and unlawful tampering with a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10852). The court sentenced defendant to 180 days in county jail. Defendant contends insufficient evidence supports his conviction on both counts, and insufficient evidence supports the finding the pressure washer had a value in excess of $400.
|
|
Defendant Angel Cesar Garibay entered a hotel and took a laptop computer. He was convicted by jury trial of grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)), and commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459). Defendant admitted that he had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed a three-year prison term, but it suspended execution of sentence and placed defendant on probation. The judgment is reversed.
|
|
In 1991, Hector Arturo Oropeza was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 15 years to life. This court affirmed Oropezas conviction in a nonpublished opinion filed October 7, 1993. (People v. Menchaca et al. (H009479).) In 2006, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) refused to set a parole date and Oropeza petitioned the superior court for a writ of habeas corpus. The order granting Oropezas petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed. The superior court is directed to enter a new order denying the petition.
|
|
Damien Apodaca (defendant) pleaded no contest on July 11, 2005, to one count of possession for sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11359, count one), and one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), count two). In addition, defendant admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12 and had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The judgment is affirmed.
|
|
Jamal Easterling was convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree home invasion robbery. On appeal, he contends (1) the trial court improperly limited his right to cross-examine the prosecutions DNA expert regarding the reliability of her labs findings; (2) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of a prior robbery by appellant and his codefendant because it was not sufficiently similar to the charged offense; (3) the trial court improperly vouched for the testimony of a prosecution witness; (4) the prosecutor improperly commented on appellants constitutional right not to testify when he elicited testimony from a police officer that the police attempted to obtain a statement from appellant; and (5) the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal. Court affirm the judgment.
|
|
Appellant and defendant Richard Warren appeals from an order of the Napa County Superior Court denying his motion to set aside a default and default judgment entered against him in a real estate action brought by the two Ford plaintiffs and respondents. Finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its consideration and granting of the motion, Court affirm the order.
|
|
This is an appeal from the judgment after a jury convicted appellant Jorge O. Rodriguez of one count of committing continuous sexual abuse against a child under the age of 14 and one count of committing a lewd act against a child under the age of 14. Appellant challenges the judgment on the grounds that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct in making his closing argument, and that the trial court improperly received verdicts at separate times and admitted irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. Court affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
