CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Jose Alfredo Lara pleaded guilty to one count of possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and one count of possessing paraphernalia for an unlawful use (id., 11364). He was placed on probation. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and Court have received no written argument from defendant.

The juvenile court found that its ward, defendant E. S., had committed new offenses, to wit, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, resisting arrest, and violating a protective order. It placed defendant on probation with conditions, among others, that he pay a restitution fine of $110 and a general fund fine of $140. On appeal, defendant contends that the juvenile court erred by (1) requiring payment of the fines before the end of probation, and (2) imposing the general fund fine without sufficient evidence of his ability to pay. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendant April Dawn Jackson-Reynolds pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of .15 or greater (count 1) and driving with a license suspended for driving under the influence (count 2). The trial court sentenced her to 10 years in prison for the conviction on count 1 and one concurrent year for the conviction on count 2. The trial court awarded defendant 339 days credit for actual time served and 139 days for conduct credit. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) sentencing her to one year rather than six months for count 2, and (2) awarding her 139 days rather than 168 days for conduct credit. The People concede the issues. Court agree that the concessions are appropriate. Court therefore modify the judgment and affirm.

In dependency proceedings involving five of their children, M.R. (father) and R.W. (mother) each seek writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l)) of a June 30, 2008 order setting for October 27, 2008, a permanency planning hearing for three of the children, daughters M.C. and M.G. and son M., who are in foster care. Neither parent disputes the order as to the eldest and second youngest children, sons M. Jr. and J., who were ordered to remain placed with mother. Having consolidated the parents petitions, we now deny them on the merits. The petitions are denied on the merits (Cal. Const., art. VI, 14; Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888 [barring subsequent challenges by appeal]; 366.26, subd. (l)(1)); given the imminency of the permanency planning hearing set for October 27, 2008, our decision is final as to this court immediately (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3)).

Defendants Michael Howard Wilson and Emmitt T. Lewis were tried jointly and both convicted of, among other things, first degree felony murder. Defendants contend the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on second degree murder. In addition, Lewis argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by revealing his prior felony conviction to the jury during voir dire and that the court erred in failing to sever the defendants trials. Court affirm.

Defendant Dezaray Delgado appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of driving under the influence, causing injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (a)) and driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more ( 23153, subd. (b)). Her counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking 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 has been apprised of her right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so.

Clark M., the father of a six and five year old, appeals an order of the juvenile court placing his children in foster care, rather than with him, after they were removed from their mothers custody. Court find no error and shall affirm.

Bobby Lee appeals from a default judgment in favor of the Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County (the Agency). Lee contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied him relief from the entry of default. Court affirm.

YuQuian Chen contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside a default and default judgment. His arguments have no merit, and Court affirm the judgment.

Patrick Bulmer, a receiver appointed by the court in the underlying case, appeals from an order denying his motion to retain counsel, approving his account, directing payment of his fees and expenses and discharging him as receiver. Bulmer asserts that the court erred in not awarding the full amount of fees and expenses sought, and in assigning him the payments due from Cuschieris Auctioneers & Appraisers, Inc., and the other named defendants (Cuschieri) to W. Douglas Weaver (Weaver) under the terms of their settlement agreement. He also maintains that the court erred in denying his request to retain counsel, and in reconsidering, sua sponte, its prior order. Court affirm.

Appellant Sarah Elizabeth Young Schulman (Schulman) appeals from a trial court order awarding summary judgment to respondent the Regents of the University of California (the Regents). She assigns error to the trial courts denial of her request to continue the Regentss motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c, subdivision (h). Because Court find no abuse of discretion, Court affirm.

Mark Alan Broughton, who was on parole after a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, was tried for the murder of his wife, Teresa Davila Broughton (Davila). Davila and Broughton did not live together, but saw each other frequently, and Broughton was with Davila when she died. The medical examiner could not determine the cause of death, and found the death to be a homicide only because of suspicious circumstances. Broughton claimed Davila, who suffered from diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, died of natural causes after he unsuccessfully administered cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, Broughton did not call for help, and remained in Davilas apartment with her decomposing body for at least eight days and perhaps a week or so longer. There were three previous incidents of domestic violence, two in 1989 and one in 1995, and a July 19, 2001 restraining order forbad Broughton from contact with Davila; remaining away from Davila was also a condition of Broughtons parole. A jury convicted Broughton of murder after a trial at which the prosecutor was admonished several times for misconduct of various sorts. Broughton appeals, asserting insufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and other claims of error.

Marcos Florez appeals from the judgment of conviction suffered upon his conviction of two narcotics offenses with enhancements, including prior conviction enhancements. He raises a single issue on appeal: trial court error in not granting his request to represent himself at the sentencing hearing. Court find no error, and affirm.

Raymond Coleman appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon with special findings by the jury he had committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang and by the court in a bifurcated proceeding he had suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. Coleman contends there was insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement; Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction (CALCRIM) Nos. 220 and 222 are constitutionally deficient because they preclude the jury from considering the lack of evidence as a basis for finding reasonable doubt; and the trial court miscalculated his presentence custody credits. Colemans substantive arguments are without merit; but, as the Attorney General concedes, the trial court improperly limited his conduct credits to 15 percent of his actual custody time. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment of conviction and the aggregate sentence imposed but remand the matter to the trial court to recalculate Colemans presentence custody credit.