CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner John E. Dannenberg has been incarcerated since 1986 for the second degree murder of his wife. Although he has had numerous parole hearings, he has repeatedly been found unsuitable for parole due to the gravity of the commitment offense. In 2005, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) decided that Dannenberg was suitable for parole and granted him parole, but the Governor reversed the Boards decision. While the Governor conceded that every factor other than the gravity of the commitment offense favored a finding that Dannenberg is suitable for parole, he concluded that the gravity of the commitment offense alone justified an unsuitability finding.
Dannenberg challenges the Governors decision, and we conclude that it is not supported by some evidence. No evidence in the record that was before the Board and the Governor supports a conclusion that, due to the nature of his commitment offense, Dannenberg currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released. As there is no other evidence that Dannenberg currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released, Court vacate the Governors decision and reinstate the Boards decision.

Appellant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) appeals from the trial courts judgment ordering it to dismiss adverse actions against respondents Ronald Sphar and Robert Martin, and to reinstate them to their employment. CDCR asserts that the trial court erroneously concluded that CDCR violated the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) because the notices of adverse action served on Martin and Sphar bore the signature of someone other than the person who had decided on the level of discipline. Court conclude that the trial courts judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, and we reverse.

Petitioner Jose Cobos was a member of the Nuestra Familia prison gang. On January 3, 1976, Cobos shot and killed another gang member on orders from gang leadership. After a jury trial, Cobos was convicted in 1976 of first degree murder, conspiracy, and possession of heroin. He is presently serving an indeterminate life sentence.
Court stayed the superior courts order pending appeal. For the reasons stated below, Court conclude that the Governor should conduct a new review of the Boards parole decision. Court will therefore remand the matter to the superior court with directions to modify its order granting Coboss habeas corpus petition. The order shall be modified to direct the Governor to vacate his November 11, 2005 parole decision and to conduct a new review of the Boards decision in light of the recent California Supreme Court decisions in In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence) and In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Shaputis), including consideration of all relevant statutory factors as required by California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2281, subdivision (b). Court affirm the order as modified.

Following the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, P. F., K. M. has appealed. She contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Court find no error and affirm.

Fusion Bonding Coating Systems, Inc. (FBC) appeals from an adverse summary judgment in favor of Regional Steel Corporation (Regional Steel), a subcontractor for steel rebar on the construction of the new Benicia Martinez Bridge. Regional Steel subcontracted with FBC and with a second company to epoxy coat portions of the rebar that Regional Steel was providing to the project. The original contract documents between Regional Steel and FBC specified approximate quantities of different configurations of rebar that would be coated at specified unit prices. After a lengthy delay on the project that was the fault of neither Regional Steel nor FBC, FBC provided Regional Steel with a series of increased unit prices necessitated by the passage of time. Regional Steel paid FBC the higher unit prices for the rebar that FBC coated subsequent to the submission of the higher prices, but sent the bulk of the remaining rebar to FBCs competitor, which agreed to perform the epoxy coating at lower unit prices. FBC sued Regional Steel for breach of contract in failing to provide it with the approximate quantities of work to perform specified in the original agreement. Following discovery, the trial court granted Regional Steels motion for summary judgment. Finding no error, Court affirm.

Defendant T.W. appeals from a judgment and dispositional order following a jurisdictional hearing in which the court sustained one count of possession of a weapon on school grounds, and placed her on probation. Defendant seeks a determination, as a matter of law, that the offense is a misdemeanor. The Attorney General agrees that the offense is a misdemeanor as a matter of law, but maintains that no further action is necessary to make it so. Court agree, and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Donald Eugene Clark was convicted by a jury of three counts of transporting controlled substances. He argues that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for treatment under the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Pen. Code, 1210 et seq.) (Proposition 36). Court find no merit to this contention and therefore shall affirm.

This court previously affirmed defendants convictions of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459count 1), first degree robbery ( 211/212.5counts 2 and 3), and forcible rape perpetrated in the course of a burglary ( 261, subd. (a)(2), 667.61, subd. (e)(2)count 4).[2] We remanded the case to the trial court, however, for resentencing, finding that the trial court had erred by imposing an indeterminate life term and a determinate term for the rape offense. The trial court resentenced defendant and defendant appeals from that sentence; his counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The trial court resentenced defendant on March 26, 2008, to the following term: an indeterminate term of 15 years to life on count 4, plus a consecutive determinate term of five years (calculated as follows: the midterm of four years on count 3, plus one year for the enhancement for use of a deadly weapon pursuant to section 12022, subdivision (b)(1)). On count 2, the court sentenced defendant to one third the midterm (16 months) to run concurrently. On count 1, the court sentenced defendant to one third the midterm, or 16 months, to run concurrently, and ordered that sentence stayed pursuant to section 654. The judgment is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, appellant Santiago Maciel was convicted of burglary (Pen. Code, 459/460, subd. (b)), vandalism ( 594, subd. (b)(1)), and grand theft ( 487, subd. (a)). On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior misconduct pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b). Court disagree and hence affirm the judgment.

Mary E. Poteate appeals from a judgment entered after she pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a).) She contends the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced her to the upper term. Court disagree and will affirm.

Defendant Jacqueline F. (Mother) is the mother of dependent children Michael F. and Marvin F. After a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (.26 hearing), the juvenile court terminated Mothers parental rights. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence that the children were adoptable. She also contends the court should have found applicable an exception to adoptability: that adoption would be detrimental due to the parents ongoing relationship with the child. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Court disagree and affirm for the reasons explained below.

Defendant David Albert Thompson appeals with a certificate of probable cause from a judgment entered on his guilty plea. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We have reviewed the entire record on appeal, find no arguable issues, and affirm the judgment.

Efrain Valdez Ceja appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a))[1]and possession of burglar's tools ( 466). The trial court sentenced him to a two-year term in state prison. Ceja asks us to independently review the record of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion. He also contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction under section 466. While we reject his sufficiency of the evidence claim, Court conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for a new Pitchess hearing in which the proper procedure is followed.

A jury found Albert Raymond Paredes guilty of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215), attempted second degree robbery ( 211), and that he personally used a firearm in the commission of both crimes ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). Court affirm.