CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants Ricky Frederick and Larry Ford were charged in the same information with the attempting carjacking of Maria Villalobos (Pen. Code, 664, 215, subd. (a)(1); count 1)[1]and with forcibly resisting an executive officer, State Park Ranger and Peace Officer John Rowe, in the performance of his duty (Pen. Code, 69; count 3). Frederick was also charged with evading a law enforcement officer, Officer Rowe, while driving a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner. (Veh. Code, 2800.2; count 2.)
Court agree that Fords abstract of judgment and the sentencing minute order must be amended to reflect that the court did not impose the one-year terms it initially indicated it would impose on his seven prison priors. Court find Fords other claims without merit, and affirm the judgment against Ford in all other respects. Court affirm the judgment against Frederick in its entirety.

On appeal from a jury verdict, defendant Medardo Andres Sanchez argues the trial court should have stayed the sentence on his conviction for witness dissuasion pursuant to Penal Code section 654, because it was incidental to and indivisible from his robbery offense. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Mercedes Diaz (wife) appeals the judgment in her action for dissolution of the marriage between her and respondent Nelson Diaz (husband). The judgment appealed from disposed of the community property and other reserved issues. Court affirm.

In March and April 2004, a string of robberies were committed at two Pizza Hut restaurants, a Carls Jr. restaurant, and the A&M video store in the Hemet area. Defendant Dontay Lewis Goins confessed to the crimes. In addition, Goins confessed to picking up a prostitute in April 2004 with his two friends and taking her to a deserted area, where she was forcibly raped by one of the men while Goins held either a gun or pepper spray to her head. Defendant Donald Eugene Sharp III was connected to the robberies through circumstantial and DNA evidence, and he was connected to the rape of the prostitute though DNA evidence and eyewitness identification. Both Sharp and Goins were convicted, by separate juries, of one count of rape in concert; Sharp was convicted of 12 counts of robbery; and Goins was convicted of 14 counts of robbery. Defendants now contend jointly and individually as follows:
Court affirm the judgments.

Defendant Chondray Armstrong was charged with one count of possession of cocaine base for sale, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. An enhancement alleged that the crime was for the benefit of the East Coast Crips, a criminal street gang, within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b). A second count alleged the substantive criminal street gang crime described in section 186.22, subdivision (a). A third count charged defendant with a misdemeanor violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1), resisting arrest.
Finding no error, Court affirm.

15-year-old Petitioner T.S. (Mother) is the mother of 16 month old Jeremiah S. Mother filed this writ petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging an order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency planning hearing as to the child. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that she had been provided with reasonable reunification services. For the reasons provided below, Court reject Mothers challenge and deny her petition.

This appeal involves 21 lots of real property located adjacent to State Center Community College Districts (SCCCD) new Clovis campus. Three of the lots are the subject of this appeal. SCCCD had a right of first refusal from the owner, American Property Holdings, LLC (APH). During the time in which SCCCD was entitled to exercise its right of first refusal, it exercised the right. During this same period, APH entered into a contract of sale with Golden Bear, Inc. (Golden Bear), and notified Golden Bear of SCCCDs right of first refusal. When ACH and Golden Bear could not agree on a value to be deducted from the contract price as a result of the three lots being sold to SCCCD instead of being included in the sale to Golden Bear, Golden Bear filed for specific performance. The trial court found the right of first refusal document to be unenforceable and granted the request by Golden Bear for specific performance. Court reverse the judgment.

Appellant Joseph Louie Farrell was charged with one count of identity theft, two counts of automobile theft and one count of receiving stolen property. One prison prior and four prior felony convictions were specially alleged. (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a); 496, subd. (a); 667.5, subd. (b); 1203, subd. (e)(4); Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) Jury trial was held; a mistrial was declared after the jury deadlocked on all counts at six in favor of acquittal and six in favor of conviction. After a second jury trial, appellant was convicted of all counts and the court found the special allegations true. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of four years and eight months imprisonment. Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not object to admission of testimony that appellant contends is legally inadmissible and subject to exclusion under Evidence Code section 352. Court are not convinced and will affirm.

Court recognize the frustrations and acrimony often associated with divorce and child custody cases, and the sometimes unforeseen issues that can arise in cases handled by a party acting in propria persona. Nevertheless, we are compelled in this case to dismiss Timothys appeal because the time for appeal has passed for all but one order, and that one order is not appealable because it was based on facts that existed at the time of the June 9, 2006 order.
The appeal is dismissed.

Appellants Emmanuel Ubiarco Gonzalez and Monte Cruz Gomez were perpetrators of gang-related violence in which the victim was assaulted with a knife, kidnapped, taken by force to a field and stabbed multiple times. The victim survived and identified his attackers, including appellants.[1] Appellants were arrested and charged with attempted murder, kidnapping, mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon. Several enhancements were alleged against appellants, including a gang enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22.[2] Pursuant to plea agreements, appellants pled guilty to kidnapping ( 207, subd. (a)), admitted the enhancements, and in return the remaining counts were dismissed. Following sentencing, appellants appealed. Appellant Gonzalez contends his guilty plea referred to the wrong subdivision of the gang enhancement statute ( 186.22, subd. (b)(4)) and therefore he is entitled to return to court to correct his plea. Appellant Gomez joins in that contention. In a separate brief, appellant Gomez challenges the validity of his guilty plea on the ground that he did not intelligently waive his right to a jury trial. Although Court direct the clerk of the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment as to each appellant to reflect that the 10 year gang enhancement was imposed pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), in all other respects the judgments are affirmed.

Defendant Adrian Castellano is a repeat offender when it comes to driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152.[1] At his most recent sentencing hearing, the trial court concluded that a further grant of probation would be to no avail and defendant was sentenced to a total prison term of 13 years. Defendant appeals, contending there was sentencing error on several grounds, including that the trial court doubled a supposed upper term of six years when the correct upper term was three years, and that the trial court improperly treated the juvenile court adjudications as strikes for purposes of the Three Strikes law.[2] Although Court find no error in the trial courts use of the juvenile court adjudications under the Three Strikes law, Court agree that the trial court applied the wrong upper term in its sentence calculations. Hence, Court remand with instructions to correct defendants sentence on this and one additional matter, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Appellant filed a suppression motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5[1]on November 26, 2007. The trial court heard argument on the motion on December 3, 2007, and denied the motion the next day. On December 4, 2007, the prosecution filed a first amended complaint which charged appellant with possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351; count three), possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351; count four), transporting cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a); count five), and transporting heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a); count six). The amended complaint further alleged that appellant suffered a prior serious felony conviction pursuant to Penal code section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d) and served two prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5. On the same day, appellant pled no contest to counts three through six and admitted the prior strike. No information was ever filed.
The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to any rights appellant may have to relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

By information filed October 9, 2007, appellant Jermaine Charles Doubs was charged with the following offenses: attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 664;[1]count 1), assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2); count 3), battery with infliction of serious bodily injury ( 242, 243, subd. (d); count 4), assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 5, 6), criminal threat ( 422; count 7), torture ( 206; count 8) and false imprisonment by violence ( 236, 237, subd. (a)); count 9). It was further alleged that a principal in the commission of the count 1 offense was armed with a firearm ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)).
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant, apparently in response to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing, filed a brief in which he raises various claims, which we discuss below. Court affirm.

Alleged father Robert D. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to the child D.E. Appellants appointed appellate counsel has since advised this court that, based on his review of the record, no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order dated July 16, 2008, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief.
Appellant has filed such a letter brief with this court. In it, he claims the court should have granted a request he made at the section 366.26 hearing for paternity testing and considered his relatives for placement. He also contends the court terminated his rights without proper notice. Having reviewed the record and the relevant law, Court conclude appellants contentions are meritless. Court affirm.