CA Unpub Decisions

John Anthony Romero appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree robbery, count 1 (Pen. Code, 211), dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, count 2 (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), possession of a controlled substance, heroin, count 3 (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) with the finding as to all counts that at the time he committed the offenses he was released from custody on his own recognizance within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.1.[1] Following a court trial, appellant was found to have suffered a prior juvenile adjudication for discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (Pen. Code, 246.3), a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d) and 667, subdivision (b) through (i).) Additionally, he was found to have served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant was sentenced to prison for a total of eight years and contends the federal constitution prohibits the use of a juvenile adjudication as a strike under the Three Strikes law. For reasons stated in the opinion Court affirm the judgment.

Following a court trial, defendant was convicted of petty theft with a prior ( 666/484, subd. (a).)[1] The court found true three prior convictions which had been alleged to limit the trial courts ability to grant probation ( 1203, subd. (e)(4)). The court sentenced defendant to a 16 month state prison term. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his four Marsden[2]motions and his motion to withdraw his waiver of a jury trial. Court find no abuse of discretion in regard to any of the contested rulings and therefore affirm the judgment.

Appellant Rolando Medrano appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)). Appellant was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder. The judgment is affirmed.

In an amended information filed March 21, 2007, appellant Jose Lopez Garcia was charged with one count of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422).[1] The information also alleged, pursuant to Californias Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i) and 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), that appellant had suffered prior convictions for robbery ( 211) in 1996 and making criminal threats ( 422) in 2005. In bifurcated proceedings, after the jury found appellant guilty as charged in count one, the court found the allegations as to both prior convictions to be true. Appellant filed this timely appeal, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the courts true finding that appellant had suffered the 1996 robbery conviction. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

General Jackson appeals from the judgment entered after his guilty plea to one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14. Court reject his contention that his police station confession to the crime should have been suppressed because he was arrested without a warrant at his home. After modifying the judgment to impose certain mandatory fines, Court affirm.

A jury found defendant and appellant Benito Marquez (defendant) guilty of two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court denied defendants motion to strike under Penal Code section 1385[1]his prior convictions of violent or serious felonies and sentenced defendant to, inter alia, two consecutive 25 years to life sentences and one concurrent 25 years to life sentence.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to strike his prior felony convictions and, therefore, his sentence should be reversed. Court hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying defendants motion to strike his prior felony convictions and therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Plaintiffs and appellants Robert Tu, David Tu and Ly Bich Tu (plaintiffs) appeal judgments in favor of defendants and respondents Jennifer Tran Vu (Vu), Le Xuan Nguyen (Nguyen), Kenny Wong, Kimberly Wong, Thuan My Lam (Lam), Henry Suh (Suh), and defendants, cross complainants and respondents Bank of America (Bank), Van Khanh Bui (Bui) and Lan Ly (Ly).
For the reasons set forth below, the judgments in favor of Ly and the Bank, relating to title to the Ashmont property, are affirmed. The judgments in favor of the remaining defendants are reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Eugene Aurel Muntean appeals from the denial of his petition for administrative mandate challenging the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspension of his drivers license. After police arrested Muntean for driving under the influence, his drivers license was suspended because of his reported refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. Court affirm the judgment.

Carrie F., the mother of four-year-old L.F., appeals from the juvenile courts October 22, 2007 order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Carrie F. argues the court lacked substantial evidence L.F. was likely to be adopted and failed to wait the requisite period of time before finding L.F. was not subject to the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) (ICWA), thus requiring reversal of the termination order. Court affirm.

Dylan Meredith Littlefield appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea, prior to his preliminary hearing, to eight counts of robbery in the second degree, counts 1-3, 5-8, 11 (Pen. Code, 211) four counts of attempted second-degree robbery, counts 4, 9, 10, 12 (Pen. Code 664/211) and his admission that he served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[1] Pursuant to his negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for a total of nine years, consisting of the middle term of three years for count 1, one-third the middle term, or one year, consecutive, for counts 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, concurrent terms on the remaining counts, plus one year for one prior prison term enhancement.
The judgment is affirmed.

Eric L. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following his admission that he committed a burglary (Pen. Code, 459). He was placed home on probation and the court declared a maximum term of confinement to be three years. He contends the court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court strike the maximum term of confinement and in all other respects affirm the order of wardship.

Michael S. appeals the juvenile court's dispositional order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him on probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing terms of probation that prohibited him from possessing tagging and graffiti producing devices and associating with members of tagging groups. Court affirm.

In appellant Deborah Urquharts action for breach of insurance contract and bad faith against respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual. Court affirm.

Appellant Homer A. Jones appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of count 3, receiving stolen property, motor vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)), and count 4, receiving stolen property, keys ( 496, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted one prior conviction within the meaning of section 667.5 and two prior convictions within the meaning of section 666.5.
Court affirm with modifications.