CA Unpub Decisions

A.E. appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring that her daughter A. is adoptable, and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Court affirm.

Anson Arnell Perry appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)) in case No. PA060090 and his admission that he violated the terms of his probation previously granted following his conviction of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) in case No. LA050552. The trial court sentenced Perry to a total term of two years in prison. Court affirm the judgments.

A jury rejected defendant Dennis Wayne Mizes testimony that he continued to reside in Oregon after several witnesses testified he was living in California for over two months and convicted him of one count of failing to register as a sex offender within 10 days of coming into California. (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(A).)[1] The trial court found true the allegations defendant had suffered four prior strike convictions for sodomy in the first degree (Or. Rev. Stat. 163.405), unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree (Or. Rev. Stat. 163.411), sexual abuse in the first degree (Or. Rev. Stat. 163.427), and assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)). He was sentenced to state prison for 26 years to life. On appeal, defendant asserts insufficiency of the evidence as well as instructional and evidentiary error. As to his sentence, he contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss enough of his earlier strikes to foreclose a life term and insists such a term constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a mere failure to register as a sex offender. Court disagree and affirm.

A jury found defendant Sofalo Matese Brown guilty of evading a peace officer with willful disregard for the safety of others (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations defendant had one prior serious felony conviction for purposes of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.),[1]served one prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)), and committed the evading offense while released on bail ( 12022.1).
Sentenced to seven years in state prison, defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in (1) admitting evidence of a prior incident in which he attempted to elude a pursuing peace officer, and (2) failing to investigate whether the prosecutor unlawfully intimidated a defense witness. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Dan W. Reynolds of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 years and one count of the attempted commission of such an act, and found that defendant committed the offenses against more than one victim. He was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 30 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court deprived him of a fair trial by jury when the court improperly dismissed Juror No. 4 during jury deliberations and interrogat[ed] each juror[, thereby] compromis[ing] the secrecy of the jurys deliberations[ and] permitt[ing] the trial court to direct the course of deliberations . . . . For reasons that follow, the court committed prejudicial error in discharging Juror No. 4 after deliberations had begun. Thus, the judgment must be reversed.

Defendant Bee Vue shot and killed Mai Vang during an attempted robbery in the parking lot of a Stockton Boulevard motel as the pair struggled over defendants gun. A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder. Sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, defendant appeals, contending the court erred thrice: (1) in denying defense counsel the opportunity to argue reasonable doubt means a near certainty, (2) in denying defendants Batson/Wheeler motion, and (3) in imposing a parole revocation fine. Court shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment, but in all other respects Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Following denial of his motion to suppress (Pen. Code, 1538.5), a jury convicted defendant Joseph Paul Mullen of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of four years. On appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his suppression motion, and alleges ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsels failure to seek a complete remedy for the Fourth Amendment violation. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Cory Juan Braden, Jr., guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2))[1]and discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner ( 246.3). The jury also found true allegations defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the assault. ( 12022.5, subd. (a)(1).) Sentenced to six years in state prison, defendant appeals, contending the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on self-defense. Finding no error, Court affirm the judgment.

Based upon defendant John Lindsey Lieuallens having sexually molested a victim over an extended period of time when the victim was 13 and 14 years old, he was charged with, and pled no contest to, seven counts of child molestation. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a) -- counts one through six; Pen. Code, 288, subd. (c)(1)) -- count seven.) He was sentenced to state prison for five years eight months, and restitution fines of $1,600 were imposed in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Carlos Alberto Melgar opened fire on Rupinder Singh in the middle of a residential street as the unarmed man attempted to outrun the bullets. One of the bullets hit Singh in the forearm, fracturing his right radius. Defendants stated reason for the violent assault: I told that Punjabi not to run. Less than two weeks later, defendant opened fire on an inhabited residence from the passenger seat of his girlfriends car as she slowly drove by the house. Six individuals were present in the house at the time of the shooting, including a 15 day old infant. Defendants explanation for the drive by: Fuck Johnny Peralez. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion by allowing evidence of the Canterbury Inn shooting. As explained more fully below, defendant is incorrect. Court affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a plea agreement that included a five-year sentencing lid, defendant Richard Bryan Brown pled guilty to transportation of methamphetamine and subornation of perjury, and he was sentenced to four years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation. The People claim that Court need not reach the issue because, as part of his plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal. As Court explain, the plea agreement did not include a waiver of defendants right to appeal his sentence; but he fails to show that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion. Thus, Court shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Jeffrey Stuart Lawhorn appeals from the judgment after he entered a guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378; Ct. 1) and transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a); Ct. 2) and admitted the crystalline methamphetamine special allegation (Pen. Code, 1170.74)[1]as to count two and two prior strike convictions. ( 667, subds. (c)-(e), 1170.12.) In accordance with its indicated sentence, the trial court imposed an eight year prison term.
We find no error because the term of release from custody was not a significant term in a negotiated plea agreement. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant William Whitaker unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence seized when a sheriffs deputy stopped him in a park near a bank robbery in Jackson. Defendant pled guilty to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1]and admitted that he had two prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and two prior serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)), and that he had served three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 38 years to life, consisting of: 25 years to life for robbery; an additional five years for each of two prior serious felonies; and one year for each of three prior prison terms. On appeal, defendant argues that: (1) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress unlawfully seized evidence; (2) the court abused its discretion in declining to strike one or more of the prior convictions under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497; (3) the courts failure to exercise its discretion resulted in a cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) the court erred in imposing a one year enhancement for the 1982 prior conviction. Court agree with defendants last argument and otherwise affirm the judgment.