CA Unpub Decisions

Charged with an open count of murder, defendant Allen Deshaun Fairman entered a negotiated plea of guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a); undesignated section references are to this code) and admitted he personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (b)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations [ 12022.53, subd. (d) (25 to life); 12022.53, subd. (c) (20 years); 12022.5, subds. (a)-(d)] with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for second degree murder plus a determinate term of 10 years for the firearm use, defendant appeals contending the prosecutor violated the plea agreement and counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Defendants contentions lack merit and Court affirm the judgment.

Charged with an open count of murder, defendant Allen Deshaun Fairman entered a negotiated plea of guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a); undesignated section references are to this code) and admitted he personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (b)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations [ 12022.53, subd. (d) (25 to life); 12022.53, subd. (c) (20 years); 12022.5, subds. (a)-(d)] with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for second degree murder plus a determinate term of 10 years for the firearm use, defendant appeals contending the prosecutor violated the plea agreement and counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Defendants contentions lack merit and Court affirm the judgment.

A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (Teichert) seeks relief from the decision of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) that Raul Barrons death arose out of, and occurred in, the course of his employment with Teichert. (Lab. Code, 3600; further section references are to the Labor Code.) Teichert claims the Board applied the wrong standard of review, and its decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Court issued a writ of review and now shall annul the Boards order.

Following an incident in which he brought a gun to school intending to confront a romantic rival, defendant Gregory Dean Wright entered a no contest plea to two counts of discharging a firearm in a school zone (Pen. Code, 626.9, subd. (d) counts 3 and 4) and seven counts of felony false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236 counts 6 through 12, inclusive), and admitted he personally used a firearm in the commission of the false imprisonments (Pen. Code 12022.5, subds. (a) & (d)). The judgment is affirmed.

Felipe Arroyo, a City of San Diego (City) police officer, brought an action against the City claiming the City discriminated against him based on his Hispanic background and unlawfully retaliated against him when he complained about the discrimination. In a prior trial, the jury found in Arroyo's favor on both of these claims and awarded him $1,325,000. The City appealed, challenging the legal and factual basis for the jury's findings. In a cross-appeal, Arroyo contended the court erred in granting the City's motion for directed verdict on his discrimination claim for failure to promote him to a sergeant position in 1998. On remand, the City successfully moved for summary judgment on Arroyo's failure to promote claim. Arroyo now appeals from that judgment. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Rasheid Ali Jones appeals after he was convicted of one count of domestic violence (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)), one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), and a misdemeanor count of resisting arrest (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)). He contends the trial court erred in certain evidentiary rulings. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant James Ronald Drake appeals after he pled guilty to one felony count of driving under the influence (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)). His appellate counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no arguable issues on appeal, and submitting the matter for the courts review. Court have now undertaken the required review of the entire record, and we find no ground for reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

Minor appellant R.B. (R.B. or the minor) makes two arguments here: (1) that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering him committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ); and (2) that the court failed to exercise its discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, subdivision (c) (731(c)) in selecting the term of his confinement. The People concede the 731(c) claim. Court are persuaded by neither of R.B.s arguments and will affirm.

Defendant and appellant Benjamin Jackson, Jr., appeals after he pleaded guilty to several felony offenses, including first degree burglary, multiple counts of receiving stolen property, possession of a controlled substance, felon in possession of a firearm, and grand theft.
His appellate counsel has filed a brief under authority of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues on appeal. Court have undertaken the required review and discovered no meritorious appellate issues. Court therefore affirm.

The underlying dependency action involves the four daughters of S.M. (hereafter referred to as S.). S. appeals an order denying her motion for modification of a dependency court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing for all four girls. She also appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her 10 year old daughter, C.B. Because we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion with respect to either order, Court affirm.

Appellant Salatiel Gutierrez was convicted of possessing heroin in prison. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison under the three strikes law, consecutive to the sentence he was already serving. On appeal, appellant contends the three strikes sentence is unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In supplemental briefing, appellant contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advocate for a reduced sentence. Court affirm.

Pablo Santobanez Garcia appeals from a judgment of 12 years in prison, the aggravated term. He contends that the trial court erred in not requesting a supplemental probation report prior to sentencing. He also contends that the abstract of judgment is erroneous. For the following reasons, Court remand for resentencing.

Appellant L.H. admitted three counts contained in two juvenile wardship petitions alleging that he possessed cocaine base, received stolen property and committed a second degree robbery. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602; Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 496d, 212.5, subd. (c).) In exchange, the prosecutor dismissed the remaining counts and street gang enhancement allegations. Appellant was committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (hereafter CYA) for a maximum period of five years and four months. Appellant argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying his requests for appointment of a psychologist and continuance of the dispositional hearing. Also, he argues the juvenile courts consideration of a portion of the probation report containing a statement made by the victim of the admitted robbery count rendered the dispositional hearing fundamentally unfair, thereby infringing his federal constitutional due process right. Neither of these arguments is persuasive. Finally, appellant asserts the proper maximum period of confinement is four years and four months. Respondent concedes this last issue and we accept the concession as properly made. Court will modify the dispositional order and, as modified, affirm.

On July 24, 2007, appellant, Ricky Allen Bennett, was charged in an information with transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a), count one), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), count two), having a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b) through (i)),[1]and a prior prison term enhancement ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The judgment is affirmed.