CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Dennis James Silva appeals from a judgment entered after the superior court revoked his probationfollowing a contested hearing and imposed a sentence of three years in the county jail. He advances one argument on appealthat in antecedent probation revocation proceedings, the trial court failed to suspend proceedings and conduct a competency hearing when it found he was not competent to waive his right to counsel under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 819 (Faretta). Court find his challenge is untimely and dismiss this appeal.

Defendant entered a no contest plea to failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, 290), and admitted allegations of a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, 1170.12) and two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). He received a state prison term of four years eight months. In this appeal he challenges the validity of his plea. Court find that the plea was knowing and voluntary, and affirm the judgment.

This appeal has been taken by the minor from the denial of her petition for modification of the visitation order and the dismissal of this dependency proceeding. Appellant complains that the juvenile court erred by terminating the action without granting her overnight visitation with her mother. Court find that the dismissal of the dependency and visitation order were not an abuse of discretion, and affirm the judgment.

In this juvenile dependency matter, the juvenile court ordered that appellant Barney L. have no further contact with his son, Barry L., and instructed the agency not to send any further reports to the father. On appeal, Barney contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by issuing its no-contact order and committed reversible error by ordering the agency not to send him any further reports. Court affirm the juvenile court order.

Defendant Myriss Jon Winston appeals a judgment entered upon his plea of no contest to attempted second degree murder. (Pen. Code,[1] 187 & 664.) His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision.

Appellant Terrance Steele was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. The jury also found that the crimes were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang; and that a principal discharged and used a firearm. The jury found not true that appellant personally discharged a firearm.
Appellant was sentenced to 25 years to life for the first degree murder; this sentence was enhanced by 20 years under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (c) (discharge of firearm by a principal). Appellant received a concurrent sentence of the high term of nine years for attempted murder and this term was also enhanced by 20 years under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (c). The conviction for conspiracy was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Thus, appellants sentence is 45 years to life. Various fines and assessments were imposed and appellant received 798 days of presentence custody credit. He appeals from the judgment, which Court affirm.

Jessie Casarez appeals the judgment following his convictions for making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422),[1] and the misdemeanor offenses of assault (three counts) ( 240) disturbing the peace by offensive language ( 415, subd. (3)), resisting arrest ( 148, subd. (a)(1)), and disobeying a court-ordered gang injunction ( 166, subd. (a)(4)). Casarez admitted a gang enhancement to the criminal threat offense ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and that he had a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). He contends there was insufficient evidence to support the criminal threat conviction. He also contends two of the assault convictions were the same offense, and punishment for two of the assaults and the disturbing the peace offense should be stayed. ( 654.) Court agree that section 654 precludes separate punishment for two of the assaults. Otherwise, Court affirm.

Robert Paul Coogan appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment imposed upon revocation of probation, previously granted following his plea of no contest to grand theft of personal property. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a); undesignated section references are to that code.) He was sentenced to a term of two years.
The order is affirmed.

Jose J. Espinoza appeals the judgment following his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, an automobile. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).)[1] Espinoza claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to object to misconduct by the prosecutor when the prosecutor misstated the reasonable doubt burden of proof during closing argument. court affirm.

This is an appeal from the judgment entered in favor of respondent State Farm General Insurance on appellants Erika Velez, John Velez, Rosemarie Henley and Amanda Henley's[1]complaint, after State Farm's special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 was granted. Court affirm.

Nathan Hall appeals his conviction of one count of murder and one count of attempted murder. He claims it was prejudicial error for the court to admit evidence of an uncharged prior offense. He also claims the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Marquette Deon Scott of kidnapping for sexual purposes (Pen. Code, 208, subd. (d)),[1]and of forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found that defendant personally used a handgun ( 12022.5, subd. (a)(1) & 12022.3, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to state prison for 29 years to life.
In this appeal, defendant raises multiple contentions of error. Court affirm.

Jesus Molina appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of error corum nobus or writ of habeas corpus, by which he sought to set aside his plea of guilty to one felony count of committing a lewd act with a minor (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of annoying or molesting a child ( 647.6, subd. (a)) on the grounds that the prosecutor concealed evidence from the defense that the victim had recanted, and that this evidence tended to disprove the charges and undermine the credibility of the key witness. (In re Ferguson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 525, 531.) Court have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that no other arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The judgment is affirmed.