CA Unpub Decisions

Curtis Gene Howard appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Pursuant to his negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for a total of four years, consisting of the low term of two years, doubled to four years by reason of the Three Strikes law. Charges of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, , 459), petty theft with priors (Pen. Code, 666, 484, subd. (a)), aggravated trespass (Pen. Code, 602.5, subd. (b)) and numerous enhancement allegations were dismissed. His plea agreement included a waiver under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, which allowed the sentencing court to consider facts in dismissed counts when ordering restitution. Appellant also waived any rights, interests or claims to any of the property seized during the course of the investigation and agreed the items could be returned to their lawful owners or otherwise forfeited to the police department. Jurisdiction over the restitution issue was retained by the court.

Christopher Blagg petitions for a writ of mandate vacating the trial courts order denying him a hearing on his application for restoration of sanity pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2.[1] Real party in interest concedes petitioner is entitled to the hearing. Court agree and grant the petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order and issue a different order setting a hearing pursuant to section 1026.2. We decline to act on petitioners additional request with respect to the challenge he has filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.

Defendant Michael Keyes pled nolo contendere to one count of violating Penal Code section 314, subdivision (1) (indecent exposure). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years probation, including 318 days in jail, and awarded defendant 318 days of credit for time served in presentence custody (including 79 days in jail and 239 days in Napa State Hospital). Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court had the duty to award the requested conduct credits. The People agree. Court shall modify the order of probation to award defendant 38 days of conduct credit.

Defendant Jayson Nathaniel Saul pled no contest to possession of cocaine for sale. Thereafter, he wanted to withdraw his plea and substitute counsel was appointed for that purpose. After reviewing the matter, substitute counsel informed the court that she did not believe defendant had a right to withdraw his plea and no such motion was filed. Defendant proceeded to sentencing with his original counsel. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred when it appointed substitute counsel and in failing to ensure that defendant was represented by counsel in his motion to withdraw his plea. Court affirm.

On March 9, 2005, defendant Anthony Bruce Williams struck his wife several times with a metal baseball bat, causing lacerations to her head that required 30 staples to close. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury found defendant Frederick Angelo Thompson, Jr., guilty of first degree residential burglary and receiving stolen property. The trial court also found defendant had a prior juvenile adjudication for robbery for purposes of a strike enhancement. The court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years, doubled for the prior strike, for a total of four years in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends he was prejudiced because during deliberation the jury inadvertently received a verdict form regarding his juvenile adjudication. Defendant also contends that use of the juvenile adjudication for a strike enhancement violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Finding no prejudice and no constitutional violations, Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Sean Batiste Wesley of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c).) He admitted having a prior serious felony conviction. ( 667, subd. (a).) Defendant was sentenced to state prison for eight years; awarded 242 days of custody credit and 36 days of conduct credit; and ordered to pay a $220 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $220 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked ( 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8). Defendant appeals. They told Owens that those Mexican guys had tried to rob them and a fight ensued.

A jury convicted Emma Brown of one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine and one count of possession of narcotics paraphernalia. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, 11364.) The trial court sentenced Brown to seven years in prison.
Brown appeals, arguing that her convictions must be reversed on several grounds. Brown's primary contention is that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the prosecution did not need to prove that Brown intended to personally sell the methamphetamine she possessed. Alternatively, Brown contends that if the trial court properly instructed the jury on this point, she was denied adequate notice of the charges against her and received ineffective assistance of counsel. Brown also argues that her convictions must be reversed because: (i) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence under Evidence Code[1]section 1101 that Brown committed drug offenses on prior occasions; (ii) the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that Brown could be impeached, should she testify, with certain prior convictions; and (iii) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding alleged juror misconduct in response to Brown's motion for a new trial. Court conclude that Brown's contentions are without merit and affirm.

Representing himself in propria persona, William Anderson appeals from the trial court's dismissal of Vista Pioneers I, Inc. (VPI) from this action following the trial court's rulings on VPI's demurrers. As we will explain, we conclude that the trial court properly sustained VPI's demurrers to all of the causes of action pled against it, but that the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend with respect to the cause of action for negligence in the first amended complaint in this action. Accordingly, Court reverse the trial court's ruling on that issue and we remand this action for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Court accepted this case on defendants petition to transfer the appeal from the Appellate Division of the Orange County Superior Court. Plaintiff Maria de Jesus Lagunas Espinoza (landlord) owns property rented to defendants Gudelia Calva and Jorge Soqui (tenants). The trial court granted judgment in favor of landlord in her action for unlawful detainer against tenants. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Finally, because tenants have vacated the premises, the only issue before us is whether the money judgment in favor of landlord should be affirmed. Court conclude the court erred and reverse the judgment.

J.H. appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights over her son Ju.H. and daughter Jy.H. She contends the trial court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and we agree the record does not establish compliance. While there is no question that respondent, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA), provided notice to several Indian tribes in this case, the record does not show the trial court received and reviewed the notice to determine whether it complies with ICWA. Therefore, Court reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Angry with his sisters boyfriend, defendant shot at him and was convicted of assault with a firearm. Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct. Court find that none of these arguments have merit and therefore affirm the conviction.

A jury convicted defendant Robert Villarreal of one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (b))[1] and found true enhancement allegations that defendant had suffered five prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12) and that he had five prison priors ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The court denied defendants motion to strike four of the strike prior convictions and sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on the burglary plus five years for the five strike priors.
We conclude that there was insufficient evidence that defendants 1982 burglary conviction was a serious felony within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(18) (and thus qualified as a strike prior) and remand for resentencing in light of that conclusion. We conclude that defendants remaining claims of error are without merit, except for his assertions regarding his motion to strike the strike priors and his claim that his sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, which we do not reach in light of our holding. Court address the issues raised in defendants habeas petition in a separate order.

Appellant Lexington National Insurance Company (Surety) posted bail for the release of a defendant, Nicholas Cozzitorto, who later failed to appear for his arraignment. According to Surety, Cozzitorto appeared in court in an unrelated criminal case six days after the court had mailed a notice of the forfeiture of the bail bond in the first case. The court failed to order Cozzitorto into custody at the time of his appearance in the second case. Surety thereafter made a motion to vacate the bond forfeiture and exonerate bail; the motion was denied. Surety appeals from that order.Surety claims that, under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (c)(1) (hereafter 1305(c)(1)), the court was required on its own motion to vacate its forfeiture order and exonerate the bond at the time Cozzitorto appeared in the second case. For the reasons stated below, Court disagree and will affirm.