CA Unpub Decisions

Kenneth T. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Instiutions Code section 602 upon a finding he committed two counts of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211) and upon his admission that he committed one count of grand theft person (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c).) He was placed in a short term camp-community placement program and contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts true finding on one of the counts of attempted robbery. For reasons stated in the disposition, Court affirm the order of wardship.

Mother Jeanine H. and her five year old daughter, Dominique V., appeal from the orders of the juvenile court finding that Dominique is described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). They contend there is insufficient evidence to support the finding of dependency. Court agree and reverse the order.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the County of Sonoma juvenile court found that appellant Efren S. committed an act of vandalism (count 2) and attempted to dissuade a witness in furtherance of a conspiracy and by use of force (counts 3 and 6, respectively). On appeal, appellant alleges three errors: (1) the sustained counts of attempting to dissuade a witness were unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the juvenile court and prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct. For the reasons set forth below, Court agree that the witness intimidation findings were unsupported by substantial evidence, but Court reject appellants remaining arguments as meritless. Accordingly, Court reverse the juvenile courts findings on counts 3 and 6, and affirm on count 2.

Defendant Cynthia Tomasini appeals from a judgment sentencing her, following revocation of probation, to prison for four years, four months, a sentence that included the upper three-year term on one count of commercial burglary. She contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the aggravated sentence on the base term because it had previously indicated that a mitigated term was appropriate. Court disagree, and Court affirm.

On October 18, 2004, defendant was convicted by jury of forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code[2], 288a, subd. (c)(2)), felony sexual battery ( 243.4) and felony terrorist threats ( 422), arising from a single incident. The allegation that he had personally used a knife during that incident was not found true by the jury. He was sentenced to the aggravated term of eight years for the oral copulation; the four year aggravated term for the sexual battery was run concurrently; and the three-year aggravated term for the terrorist threats was stayed pursuant to section 654. Defendant appeals, alleging that he was improperly sentenced to the aggravated term.

Mirrioul Tolliver (Tolliver) appeals from a prison sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. Court find no arguable issue and affirm.

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that John M. (appellant) committed an attempted second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211; 664.) Based on this finding, appellant was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court and placed on 30 days home supervision. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) On appeal, appellant contends there is insufficient evidence that he aided and abetted the commission of the attempted robbery. Court affirm.

Appellant Deron D. (appellant) appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellants counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues are being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead is being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally. The judgment is affirmed.

Renteria, an unlicensed subcontractor, was hired to provide stucco and plaster work for a home improvement project. Mihran Novshatian fell from scaffolding built by Renteria and sued him for personal injuries as well as Alex Cruz, the contractor who hired Renteria, and Douglas Fregolee, the owner of the home. Cruz and Renteria filed cross-complaints against each other for indemnity and contribution. Summary judgment was granted as to the claims against Fregolee and judgment in his favor was entered on August 25, 2006. The appeal is dismissed.

Ingrid Roxana Aguilon appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in her conviction of pimping (Pen. Code, 266h, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Aguilon to three years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Toney M. appeals from an order continuing wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459). He was placed in a long-term camp community placement program and contends the juvenile court violated his state and federal constitutional rights when it ordered various probation conditions without adding a knowledge requirement. He also challenges the condition that he not use or possess narcotics even if prescribed by a physician. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court modify the conditions of probation and in all other respects affirm the order continuing wardship.

Bruce Randolph Westin appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of committing vandalism causing damage over $400 (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a).) Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on formal probation for five years under certain terms and conditions. He contends the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a Marsden hearing after he requested the same and informed the court the representation he was receiving was inadequate. For reasons stated in the opinion Court affirm the judgment.