CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Marquise Desauntellee Williams[1]appeals from a judgment of conviction following his no contest plea pursuant to a plea bargain. Defendant was convicted of carrying a loaded unregistered firearm, a felony (Pen. Code, 12031, subd. (a)(1)[2](count 1)); having a concealed firearm on his person, a felony ( 12025, subd. (a)(2) (count 2)); and possession of a firearm in a school zone, a felony ( 626.9, subd. (b) (count 3)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years with the condition that he serve 365 days in county jail, and awarded him 154 days of actual credit plus 76 days of good time/work time credit, for a total presentence credit of 230 days.
The judgment is affirmed.

Following the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5), defendant Ignacio Perfecto Gonzalez entered a plea of no contest to transporting marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted that he suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and served a prior prison term (id., 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to state prison for a total term of five years and granted the Peoples motion to dismiss all other counts and sentencing enhancement allegations. On appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his suppression motion and his Pitchess motion. Court affirm.

Appellant Alejandro G. appeals from an order that he remain a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) entered after the juvenile court found true the allegation appellant possessed cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). Appellant contends the juvenile court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs when the detaining officer stopped his vehicle for failure to display a front and rear license plate. Court affirm.

George J. Ruiz appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)), his admissions that during the commission of the offense he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a pellet gun, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(2), that he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and two prior convictions of a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant withdrew his motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995, count 1, attempted kidnapping for carjacking (Pen. Code, 664/209.5) count 2, second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) were dismissed and appellant was sentenced to prison for 30 years. His sentence consisted of the upper term of nine years for count 3, doubled by reason of the Three Strikes law, five years for each of the two prior felony convictions admitted pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), plus the midterm of two years for the weapon enhancement. The judgment is affirmed.

Following revocation of probation, appellant Richard Sullivan Cowart was sentenced to prison for maintaining a place for the sale or use of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11366) (section 11366). The appeal involves two different superior court case Nos. NA066576 and NA069124. Appellants counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. Appellant was notified that he could file his own brief and has not done so. The judgment is affirmed.

This is the fourth appellate proceeding in this case. In the first, Meta M. petitioned this court for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) setting aside the juvenile courts July 26, 2006 order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]to consider termination of her parental rights over her two teenaged daughters, K.M. and S.M. We denied the petition. (Meta M. v. Superior Court (Oct. 30, 2006, B192596) [nonpub. opn.].)
The order is affirmed.

The People appeal an order of the trial court striking a criminal street gang allegation regarding defendant's 1999 serious felony and strike conviction of possession of a proscribed weapon. (Pen. Code, 1238, subd. (a)(1), 12020, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b).) Court conclude that defendant's admission of the gang allegation was voluntary and intelligent, and reverse.

In accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, the People amended the information to add a second count, charging defendant Hector Jimenez Perez with drawing or exhibiting a firearm in a rude, angry or threatening manner (Pen. Code, 417, subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor. Defendant pled guilty to count 2, after which the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on summary probation for three years under certain terms and conditions and gave him credit for time served. Count 1, charging defendant with assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (b)) and alleging sentencing enhancements, was dismissed. Defendant thereafter filed a notice of appeal in which he requested a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied his request.

Petitioner Amanda H. is the mother of Miguel G., Jr. (age eight), and Federico (Freddy) G. (age seven). Both Miguel and Freddy are dependents of the juvenile court. On January 28, 2008, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Mother filed a petition for extraordinary relief under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Mother argues that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that it had provided reasonable services. Court agree and grant the petition.

Christopher Edward Price appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and his admissions that he previously had been convicted of two felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Price to four years in state prison. Court remand the matter to the trial court for correction of the number of presentence custody credits awarded to Price. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

In a juvenile dependency matter, the court terminated reunification services and set a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Father, K.D., petitions for extraordinary writ to review the juvenile courts order, contending that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Father contends that the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department or DCFS) failed to provide reasonable reunification services, that the court erroneously took judicial notice of the entire court file and that the court erroneously considered hearsay statements in the DCFS report filed for the previous review hearing in September 2007. Court reject fathers contentions, and deny the petition.

Mother Bobbie S. seeks review of a dependency court order denying her reunification services in this case involving her daughter, Yvonne M. Court summarily deny her petition for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452).

Defendant Christopher Michael Hodges appeals from the judgment of the San Joaquin County Superior Court sentencing him to state prison for five years following a finding that he violated his probation. On appeal, defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of appointed conflict counsel when counsel refused to file a motion to withdraw his plea. Defendant also contends the trial court erred by not allowing him to withdraw his plea because the factual basis he admitted did not constitute carjacking. Embedded in this second argument is also a third argument -- the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on a letter and/or comments the court should have treated as a Marsden motion.
Court affirm the judgment.

After a jury found him guilty of killing his cellmate, defendant Josef Jensen appeals his convictions for second degree murder and malicious aggravated assault by a life prisoner. He raises claims of instructional error.
Finding any instructional errors harmless, Court affirm the judgment.