CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Raymond Earl Boyd appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession of more than one ounce of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (c)), vandalism causing damage in excess of $400 (Pen. Code, 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)),[1]and six counts of possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Boyd contends the trial court erred by failing to stay his sentence on five firearm counts and denying his motions to traverse the search warrant and dismiss added counts on the basis of vindictive prosecution. Court conclude that the trial court erred by imposing separate sentences for each gun appellant possessed and in the calculation of the court security fee, but otherwise affirm.

Pro se plaintiff Phill Williams claims that he sustained injuries more than eight years ago after sitting in a defective booth at a Churchs Chicken (Churchs) restaurant in Louisiana. In three separate and successive actions, he sued Churchs and multiple insurance companies (collectively Defendants) in Louisiana state court, federal district court in Louisiana, and federal district court in California. All three courts entered judgment in favor of Defendants and the Louisiana Court of Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgments respectively. Most recently, Williams sued Defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court. Pursuant to the Vexatious Litigants statute (Code of Civil Proc., 391 et seq.), the trial court required Williams to furnish security in the amount of $20,000 to proceed with his action. Williams failed to post the bond and the trial court accordingly dismissed his complaint with prejudice. Court affirm.

Appellant Elwood Mitchell appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of nolo contendere to possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). Appellant contends the trial court denied him his constitutional right to compulsory process by refusing to require the sheriff to execute a body attachment. Court agree.

Appellant Angelo Newsome appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of three counts of second degree robbery, one count of attempted second degree robbery, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, assault with a firearm, and possession of cocaine base. Newsome contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance and that the abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the sentence imposed. Court affirm, but impose various omitted mandatory fees and penalty assessments and direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment.

Rudy Guadalupe Ramirez appeals from a judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, 664/215, subd. (a), count 1)[1]attempted robbery ( 664/211, count 2) and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), count 3). The trial court sentenced him to the low term of 18 months on count 1 and to one-third the midterm, or eight months, on count 3, to be served consecutively. It also imposed the midterm of two years on count 2 and stayed execution pursuant to section 654. Appellant contends that imposition of consecutive sentences on counts 1 and 3 violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey(2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi) and Blakely v. Washington(2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). Court affirm.

Rodney Stockton, also known as Ronnie Stockton, appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of petty theft with prior petty theft convictions (Pen. Code, 484, subd. (a), 666).[1] Appellant admitted having suffered four prior felony strike convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and petty theft priors within the meaning of section 666. After dismissing three prior felony strikes, the trial court sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years for the petty theft conviction, doubled as a second strike, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement. The judgment is affirmed.

Following a 10-day jury trial, defendant Raul Padilla Rodriguez was convicted of corporal injury upon a child with great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 273d, subd. (a) count one), and child endangerment ( 273a, subd. (a) count two). The jury found true the enhancement allegation that defendant inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim who was under five years of age ( 12022.7, subd. (d)). Sentenced to 10 years four months in state prison, defendant appeals his conviction claiming evidentiary error and prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant also claims the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error, which the People concede. With the exception of clerical errors in the abstract of judgment, Court find defendants claims lack merit. Court shall order the abstract of judgment modified and affirm the judgment as modified.

A modification decision.

Objector Douglass W. Dunn (Dunn) appeals from an order denying his will contest and admitting the will of his estranged wife Christina M. Dunn (decedent) to probate. Neither Dunn nor Amir Aalam, his attorney of record from the law firm of Purdy & Brehme, appeared at the July 10, 2007, hearing on the will contest. On appeal Dunn argues that he is entitled to reversal because: (1) the court erred in admitting the will without requiring cross-examination of both subscribing witnesses; (2) the court abused its discretion and denied Dunn due process by refusing to allow him to appear through attorney Robert Schell; and (3) the decedents signature on the proffered will differs significantly from the decedents undisputedly genuine signature on another document. Alderson seeks attorney fees and costs for defending the will contest on appeal. Court shall affirm the order and limit Aldersons award to costs as the prevailing party.

A jury found defendant Fernando Chavez guilty of assaulting a child under eight years of age whom he had care of with force that to a reasonable person would be likely to produce great bodily injury, resulting in the childs death. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on two lesser included offenses: simple assault and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Finding no error, Court affirm the judgment.

In return for dismissal of nine other counts and enhancement allegations, defendant Michael Stephen Peterson pleaded no contest in November 1997 to one count of lewd acts on the body of a child of 14 years when defendant was at least 10 years older (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (c)(1)) and one count of encouraging a minor to use methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11353).
Court shall affirm the order denying defendants motion to vacate the plea.

Defendant John Monteverde had a domestic dispute with his ex-wife, then absconded with her car, her ATM card, her credit card and $800 she had in cash. Police went to defendants mothers house, where they found defendant in possession of the car keys and the stolen car locked in the garage.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error in favor of defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

On September 7, 2007, defendant Sergio G. Martinez, Jr., and Johnnie Mosier got into an argument. As Mosier left the scene, defendant ran past Mosier and took a semiautomatic firearm from a vehicle. He then fired multiple shots at Mosier, hitting him once in the leg.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to an upper term of nine years in prison, imposed various fines, and awarded 92 days credit (62 actual and 30 conduct).

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, Court affirm the judgment.