CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Karluki Larry Jones pleaded no contest to one count of identity theft. (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a).) Six other felony charges one count of burglary (Pen. Code, 459), three counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, 484, subd. (a), 487, subd. (a)), one count of attempted grant theft (Pen. Code, 664), and an additional count of identity theft were dismissed. Defendant was placed on probation for three years. In this appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by: Finding no prejudicial error, Court affirm.

In a retrial, following our reversal of defendants convictions due to jury instruction and evidentiary error (People v. Vasquez, E037327), the jury convicted defendant of mayhem (Pen. Code, 203),[1]during which he inflicted serious bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)) and used a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) The jury also convicted defendant of assault with a knife ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), during which he inflicted serious bodily injury. Before sentencing, the trial court dismissed the mayhem conviction in the interests of justice (1385). In bifurcated proceedings during the first trial, which we affirmed during defendants first appeal (People v. Vasquez, E037327), defendant admitted having suffered a prison prior ( 667.5, subd. (b)), a serious prior ( 667, subd. (a)) and a strike prior ( 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1) Defendant was sentenced to prison for fourteen years and appeals, claiming evidence was erroneously admitted and the minutes of the sentencing hearing and abstract of judgment do not correctly reflect the sentence actually imposed. We reject his first contention and agree with his second. Therefore, Court affirm, while directing the trial court to correct the errors in the above-referenced documents.

A jury convicted defendant of possessing a firearm by an ex-felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)).[1] In bifurcated proceedings, defendant admitted having suffered three prior convictions for which he served prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)), the trial court found that he had suffered a fourth, and defendant admitted having suffered four strike priors. ( 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A).) He was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life. He appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient to disprove his defense, jury instruction error occurred and his Romero motion was improperly denied. Court reject his contentions and affirm his convictions and the true findings as to his priors. Court direct the trial court to correct errors in the minutes of the sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment and Court remand the matter for sentencing on the prison priors.

On October 26, 2007, defendant was charged with the unlawful driving and taking of a pickup (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), and six prison prior enhancements for prior felony convictions. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) On November 5, 2007, defendant entered into a plea bargain. Under the terms of the agreement, defendant agreed to plead guilty to the vehicle taking, and to admit two of the prison priors, in return for a stipulated sentence of five years in state prison. The agreement further provided that defendant's sentence would be served concurrently with any parole violation. The court approved the plea bargain, and defendant was sentenced forthwith. Specifically, the court imposed the upper term of three years for count one, and added one year each for the two prison priors. Defendant appealed from the sentence only. The judgment is affirmed.

In the parking lot outside the offices of defendant, the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (the Authority), plaintiff Frances Horlings stepped off a curb and onto a handicapped ramp. Her foot, however, instead of going onto the gently sloping forward path of the ramp, went onto the steeply sloping side of the ramp; her ankle twisted, and she fell. On appeal, Horlings contends that she presented sufficient evidence of each of these elements. Court agree. Hence, Court reverse. Court need not address her alternative contention that she adequately pleaded and proved a cause of action for breach of a mandatory duty. (Gov. Code, 815.6.)

On December 16, 2006, following an argument with his temporary roommate, defendant, without permission, took his roommates car and failed to return it to her. Two days later, defendant called the roommate and told her that he had run the car into a ditch. The vehicle was recovered about four days after defendant took it. The car had been totaled and stripped. On December 6, 2007, defendant was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement with credit of a total of 284 days for time served.

A jury convicted defendant of one count each of bringing heroin and methamphetamine into prison (Pen. Code, 4573),[1]and one count each of conspiring to bring heroin and methamphetamine into prison ( 182, subd. (a)(1).) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found that defendant had suffered four priors for which he served prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for 7 years. He appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potentially arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Court offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. After conducting our independent review of the record, Court affirm the judgment.

On March 5, 2002, pursuant to a search warrant, narcotics officers searched two residences in the City of Fontana. The officers found a total of 102.58 pounds of marijuana, 14.4 pounds of methamphetamine, a white crystal like substance weighing 2.4 pounds, numerous other items related to drug sales, and bills in the names of defendant and codefendants. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)),[1]during which he discharged a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (c)) and unlawfully driving/taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851). As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced to the agreed-to term of 29 years in prison. There is no certificate of probable cause in the record before this court. Court offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. After concluding our independent review of the record, Court affirm the judgment.

R.C. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights as to her 8-year old son, A.T. (hereafter the child) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. On appeal, Mother contends (1) the adoption assessment report was inadequate, and (2) she did not waive her right to claim the adoption assessment report was inadequate. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Robert Schwartz appeals from the order filed April 28, 2007, denying his application for a determination of whether his proposed petition for an order directing distribution would be a contest in the context of the no-contest provision of the Adolf W. Schwartz and Chris Edda Schwartz Living Trust of 1987 (the trust). The trial court found the application moot because appellant had placed the petition itself in controversy for the courts determination. Court affirm.

On September 25, 2007, an information was filed charging appellant, Martin Barajas, with attempted murder (count one; Pen. Code 664/187(a));[1]corporal injury to a cohabitant (count two; 273.5(a)), with an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury in circumstances involving domestic violence ( 12022.7(e)); assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count three; 245(a)(1)), with an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury in circumstances involving domestic violence ( 12022.7(e)); and battery with serious bodily injury (count four; 243(d)).
On December 18, 2007, Barajas filed a notice of appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Clayton Rice (Rice) and respondents Mark and Tina Mather (collectively Mather) live in adjoining parcels on Pine Street in Tuolumne. Mathers house includes an outdoor staircase leading to a second story deck, which provides the only access to the living quarters. The two properties previously consisted of a single parcel. When the properties were divided, Mathers staircase and part of the deck were inadvertently located within the legal description to what later became the Rice property. Rice was aware of the situation when he bought his property, but filed complaints with the local planning department for the staircase and deck to be demolished for code violations.
Mather brought the instant action to quiet title and for either an implied or prescriptive easement for the continued use of the staircase and deck. Rice filed a cross-complaint and motion for summary adjudication on the disputed issues. Mather then sought a summary judgment. The trial court found an implied easement existed and granted Mathers motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Rice principally claims Mather failed to prove the required elements of an implied easement. Court affirm.

A felony complaint filed November 21, 2007, charged appellant Eric Lee Hackett with a felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision(a),[1]possession of methamphetamine, a misdemeanor violation of section 11357, subdivision (b), possession of marijuana, and a misdemeanor violation of section 11364, possession of paraphernalia. The complaint also alleged that Hackett had served three prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On December 8, 2007, Hackett lodged a document entitled Affidavit: For the Record. PC 1237. On May 6, 2008, Court granted Hacketts application to construe that document as a notice of appeal.