CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Douglas Allen Peters appeals from a judgment of conviction of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a))[1] and receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)) following a jury trial. A mistrial was declared on a second count of first degree burglary. On appeal, defendant argues that judgment must be reversed because (1) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to sever trial of the two burglary counts in violation of due process and (2) the prosecutor committed prejudicial Griffin error (Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [85 S.Ct. 1229] (Griffin)). Defendant also asks this court to review the record of the in camera hearing on his pretrial motion for discovery of police officer records (Pitchess) for any abuse of discretion.
The appellate record does not disclose any due process or Griffin error. Court are compelled to reverse the judgment for a new in camera hearing on defendant's Pitchess motion, however, since this court does not have an accurate record of the materials produced by the custodian of records and examined by the trial court in camera.

This appeal arises out of a marital dissolution proceeding between appellant Lakshmi Thirunavu and his former wife, respondent Neela Annamalai.
On appeal from an October 2007 judgment on reserved issues, Lakshmi asserts a number of claims, most of them relating to property issues. Finding no merit in any of appellants contentions, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Mowlid Abdillahi was charged by complaint filed September 21, 2006, with seven counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c); counts 1 through 7) and one count of misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1); count 8).[1] As to the robbery offenses, the complaint further alleged that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife, at the time of each offense ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)). On April 12, 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to all the charges and admitted the enhancement allegations on the condition that he would be sentenced to no more than five years in state prison. On June 15, 2007, defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Mustafa Ameen Wells was charged with first degree burglary in Santa Clara County (Pen. Code section 459/460(a)).[1] It was further alleged that a person other than an accomplice was present in the residence during the burglary ( 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Three prior strike convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12 were also alleged, as well as three prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). On October 12, 2007, the court denied the Romero motion, denied probation and sentenced defendant to nine years in prison (the mitigated term of two years doubled to four for the burglary plus a consecutive term of five years for the serious felony prior). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, based upon the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.

Defendant Estuardo Barrios was charged with various felony offenses in three separate cases in Santa Clara County. In CC779234, he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen.Code 245, subd. (a)(1)), with a special allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7) and a gang enhancement (Pen. Code 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(c)). In both CC772996 and CC780516, he faced one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code 10851, subd. (a)). The judgment is affirmed.

Cecilia C., is the mother of minors Stephanie O. and Jonathan O. (We refer to her as Mother.) She has petitioned for writ intervention to overturn a juvenile court order terminating family reunification services and setting the case for a termination of parental rights hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court., rule 8.452.) She is entitled to that relief, and Court issue writ accordingly.

After finding defendant Helenna Marie Marquez violated her probation as a result of her conviction for vehicle theft in another case, the trial court terminated defendants probation, executed a previously suspended eight-year sentence in state prison, and imposed specified fees and fines. On appeal, defendant contends (1) her attorneys failure to advise the court of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) (hereafter section 1170(d)) as a sentencing alternative following revocation of probation was ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial courts exercise of sentencing discretion denied defendant her right to due process of law; and (3) the court erred by imposing the $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) twice. Court affirm the judgment.

After pleading no contest to both counts, defendant Jamahl Hoskins was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, he challenges the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He contends the trial court erred because the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not give the officers probable cause to search the Elk Grove residence where the officers found a firearm. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Mark Brian Murray entered a negotiated plea of no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)), and admitted three prior DUI convictions within 10 years. The trial court sentenced him to three years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by denying him 22 days of presentence custody credits to which he is entitled. The People concede the error. Court agree and shall order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment.

In this misdemeanor criminal action, defendant Erica K. Volpe petitions for a writ of mandate directing respondent Appellate Division of the San Diego County Superior Court (the appellate division) to vacate its October 30, 2007 order denying her petition for a writ of mandate in that court, and to enter a new order granting her petition. Essentially, Volpe had sought mandamus relief in the appellate division to direct the trial court to set aside its order denying her hybrid Pitchess/Brady motion for review of a police officer's records, and to enter a new ruling granting her requested discovery.
Although defense counsel's presentation was marginal, we will conclude the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find materiality and good cause for some of the information sought under the hybrid Pitchess/Brady motion in this case. Accordingly, Court grant the petition, ordering the appellate division to set aside its October 30, 2007 order, and to enter a new order granting the petition and directing the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the officer's personnel files in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion to ascertain whether they contain information required to be disclosed to Volpe under Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83.

Anna C. appeals a judgment declaring her son, Jack C. III, a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j). Court affirm.

Defendant Reginald Leon Carroll appeals from an order committing him to a secured facility after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)),[1]burglary of a motor vehicle ( 459) and falsely identifying oneself to a police officer ( 148.9, subd. (a)). In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for which he served prison sentences ( 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to prison for four years. He appeals, claiming insufficiency of the evidence and instructional error. Court reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to correct errors in the abstract of judgment.

A jury found defendant Giovanni Alvarado guilty of assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily harm (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1), felony false imprisonment ( 236, count 2), and misdemeanor battery on a prior cohabitant. ( 243, subd. (e)(1), count 3.) The jury also found true the enhancement allegation that defendant personally used a deadly weapon during the commission of count 2. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23).) Defendant admitted that he had served one prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)) and had one prior strike conviction. ( 667, subds. (b) (i), 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced him to a total term of six years in state prison, as follows: the middle term of three years, doubled due to the strike prior, on count 1, plus a concurrent three-year term on count 2, which included the middle term of two years for the substantive offense and a one-year term for the weapon use enhancement, plus a concurrent 30-day term, local time. The court struck the term for the prison prior under section 1385. On appeal, defendant contends that: 1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on felony false imprisonment; and 2) the court should have stayed the sentence on count 2 pursuant to section 654. Court affirm.