CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Simon Ranteesi brutally killed Milia Ranteesi, his estranged wife, bludgeoning her to death in the presence of their children. A jury convicted him of first degree murder by use of a deadly weapon, and he was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison. On appeal, appellant makes two contentions: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it precluded his expert witnesses from testifying as to the specific matters that formed the basis for their opinions that he suffered from delusional disorder; and (2) the trial court erred in rejecting his request that the jury be instructed on unconsciousness by involuntary intoxication because the evidence showed he was in a Paxil induced manic state when he committed the killing. Court conclude that the first contention has merit, but that the error was harmless, and that the second contention has no merit. Court therefore affirm.

The juvenile court found that two children were persons within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j).[1] The court also entered a dispositional order declaring the children dependents of the court and removing them from their fathers physical custody. We affirm the jurisdictional order under section 300, subdivision (b) but reverse it under section 300, subdivision (j). Court also reverse the dispositional order.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Miguel Rosas pleaded no contest to two counts of aggravated sexual assault on a minor and one count of forcible lewd conduct with a minor and the trial court sentenced him to a state prison term of six years plus 30 years to life. Rosas appeals from the judgment. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for an independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has not referred this court to any possible, but not arguable, issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396].) We advised appellant that he could submit any argument that he wanted us to consider and counsel has provided this court with an English translation of appellant's response which was written in Spanish. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

On November 14, 2006, a second amended information was filed against appellant Rodolfo Leon and Jonathan Hernandez, charging them with the murder of Luis Espinoza Ochoa on April 7, 2003 (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)).[1]The information alleged that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and that a principal had used a firearm that had caused great bodily injury and death (12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), (e)(1)). Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.
On December 11, 2006, the jury found appellant guilty as charged, and also found the gun use and gang allegations to be true. The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life for the murder, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for a gun use enhancement ( 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)).

Appellant Geoffrey Barr appeals from a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon -- his truck. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He also contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte regarding the defense of necessity. Court find substantial evidence in the record to support appellants conviction, and determine that the omission of a necessity instruction was not error. Thus, we affirm the judgment. However, Court have found a clerical error in the abstract of judgment, and order that it be corrected.

Paul Dwight Baker was sentenced to five years eight months state prison pursuant to a written plea agreement in which he pled no contest to "wet" reckless driving (Veh. Code, 23103/23103.5), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)), driving when his license was suspended for a prior DUI (Veh. Code, 14601.2, subd. (a)), and failure to appear while on bail with an out-on-bail enhancement (Pen. Code, 1320.5; 12022.1, subd. (b).)[1] He appeals, claiming that he was denied the right to bring a motion to withdraw his plea and that the trial court should have appointed a new attorney to argue the motion. ( 1018.) Court affirm. A defendant is not entitled to "substitute counsel on demand" after the trial court conducts a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) and finds that defendant received effective assistance of counsel in negotiating the plea. (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694-696.)

B.M., a minor, appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) entered following a finding that, as alleged in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 notice, he violated probation previously granted after a determination that he committed battery (Pen. Code, 242). The court ordered appellant placed in camp for a maximum period of confinement of eight months, and awarded him 29 days of predisposition credit. Court affirm the order of wardship, but vacate the credit award and remand the matter for recalculation of the award.

Minor appellant challenges the decision of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against her on the ground a condition of probation is vague and overbroad. Court agree and modify that condition.

The juvenile court dismissed a dependency petition alleging sexual abuse of the minor child J.B. by her father, respondent David B. (Father). After a trial on the merits, the court ruled that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not meet its burden of proof. The court found that J.B.s mother, appellant Maria S. (Mother), had coerced the childs testimony.
DCFS did not appeal from the dismissal of the petition. Instead, Mother challenges the courts ruling. The purported appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Mother has no standing to pursue it.

Defendant Fabian Rodriguez was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder and was found to have personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon in the commission of the offense. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a term of 15 years to life, with a consecutive term of one year for use of a dangerous or deadly weapon. Defendant appeals, contending his confession was taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694] (Miranda) and was not voluntary. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant Michael Dean Demello guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant admitted two prior strike enhancements. The trial court sentenced him to four years for the assault conviction and an additional two years for the strike enhancements for a total of six years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on his theory of self-defense. Defendant also contends the trial court violated his federal constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process by failing to advise him of his rights prior to admission of his prior convictions. In addition, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to advise him of the penal consequences of admitting the two prior convictions. Court disagree with defendant and affirm the judgment.

While on probation in Butte County case No. CM026303 for possession of methamphetamine, defendant Gregory Scott Berry was discovered by deputies of the Butte County Sheriffs Department to be in possession of methamphetamine, a glass pipe, marijuana, plastic baggies, and an electronic scale. Detained in the back of a patrol vehicle, defendant kicked the back passenger window until it shattered.
On appeal, defendant contends that the upper term sentence contravenes the holdings of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham) and Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely). Defendant further contends that the trial court erred in imposing an aggregate fine of $1,060, and that the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of the court at sentencing. As will be explained more fully below, Court reject defendants claim of error under Cunningham and Blakely. However, as the abstract of judgment is significantly at odds with the oral pronouncement at sentencing, we will remand to the trial court with instructions to remedy several items of error specifically enumerated herein.

A jury found defendant Paul Leo Tremblay guilty of 18 counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under age 14 (counts one through thirteen and counts sixteen through twenty) and two counts of exhibiting harmful matter to a minor (counts fourteen and fifteen). Sentenced to 41 years 4 months in prison, defendant appeals and contends: (1) the People presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions for exhibiting harmful matter to a minor; and (2) the trial courts imposition of consecutive sentences violated Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [166 L.Ed.2d 856]. Disagreeing with these contentions, Court affirm the judgment.