CA Unpub Decisions

Donald Joseph Huntsman (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest pleas to seven counts of robbery with an admission that during the count 1 robbery he personally used a deadly weapon, a knife. (Pen. Code, 211, 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Prior to entering his pleas and admission, the trial court denied his motion to suppress unlawfully-seized evidence. ( 1538.5.) The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison. He contends that the trial court improperly denied his section 1538.5 motion because the police officers lacked probable cause to search the Ford Escort. The judgment is affirmed.

Pascual Garcia (Garcia) and Rebecca Cedeno (Cedeno) appeal from the judgments entered following a jury trial which resulted in their convictions of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1]and Cedenos admission she had previously served a prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced Garcia to four years, four months in prison and Cedeno to four years in prison. As to Garcia, we remand the matter to the trial court for correction of the abstract of judgment. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgments.

Douglas Avans (Avans) appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211).[1] The trial court sentenced Avans to three years in state prison. Court affirm the judgment.

In this case we conclude the superior court cannot remove a trustee under Probate Code section 17200 without first determining whether the trust in question ever came into existence. Because the superior court here expressly declined to make this foundational determination before it removed defendant Brandon J. Hughes as the trustee of a trust for the benefit of his sister, Court reverse the order of removal and remand the case for further proceedings.

Ervin Sommer appeals from a judgment and numerous orders of the superior court in favor of Linda Hawkes, as the trustee of the Julia Jeppesen Hawkes Trust (collectively, the Trust), for which he acted as a co-trustee from September 1994 until his removal in October 1997. The judgment awarded the Trust compensatory and punitive damages arising out of Sommer's execution of promissory notes, payable by the Trust to him and secured by a deed of trust against Trust property, during the time that he was acting as a co-trustee, and also awarded the Trust $11,916.50 in attorney fees against him. Sommer contends that the judgment and the court's orders issued in the proceedings cannot stand. The Trust argues that certain of the decisions Sommer purports to appeal are not appealable, that his appeal from others is untimely and that, in any event, the appeal is without merit; it requests sanctions against Sommer for pursuing a frivolous appeal.
Court conclude that we have no jurisdiction over Sommer's appeal as to the orders denying his request that the trial judge recuse from the case and striking his challenge for cause, its denial of his motion for reconsideration, its decision (or lack thereof) on his motion to vacate the judgment and the order granting a preliminary injunction and thus dismiss the appeal as to those matters. Insofar as Sommer appeals from the judgment and the order awarding attorney fees to the Trust, we conclude that the appeal is without merit and affirm the judgment and order in all respects. Because the Trust is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney fees in this appeal, Court decline to award the Trust its fees a second time as a sanction.

A jury convicted George Munoz (appellant) of numerous offenses arising out of a 2002 incident in which he and a companion, armed, went to the house of an acquaintance and over the course of several hours, forced several inhabitants to do various things against their will. The convictions include four counts of oral copulation by acting in concert (Pen. Code,[1] 288a, subd. (d); counts 1-4); three counts of assault with an assault weapon, in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(3) (counts 5-7); residential burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, with intent to commit a felony ( 459, 460; count 8); and three counts of first degree robbery in violation of sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (a) (counts 9-11). In addition, appellant was convicted of count 12, unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a); count 13, possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of section 12021, subdivision (a)(1); and count 14, receiving stolen property, in violation of section 496, subdivision (a).
Court have examined the arguments and the record and affirm the convictions and the judgment, as modified to strike certain firearm enhancements and the prison priors, with directions to the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and submit it to the Department of Corrections; in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

In 1986, petitioner Rufus Thompkins killed his wife (Emma) and wounded her boyfriend. In 1988, a jury convicted Thompkins of the first degree murder of his wife, assault with a deadly weapon on her boyfriend, and burglary. Thompkins was sentenced to 27 years to life on the murder count, and concurrent terms on the remaining counts. Thompkins, 52 years old, has remained in prison for the past 19 years and has largely avoided serious disciplinary actions while incarcerated. The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) found him unsuitable for parole at several hearings, the most recent of which was in 2006. The denial of parole challenged by this petition for writ of habeas corpus was based on BPH's conclusion that several factors showed Thompkins was unsuitable for parole.
Thompkins asserts BPH's conclusion has no evidentiary support, and therefore violates his due process right to parole. He argues the BPH's conclusion was improperly based solely on the circumstances of his offense and there is no evidence he currently poses a risk of danger if released on parole.

Jacqueline Stellmacher (Mother) appeals a postjudgment order awarding Darrell J. Dillon (Father) primary physical custody of their minor son Demetrius. On appeal, Mother contends the trial court erred by: (1) applying an incorrect standard in awarding Father primary physical custody and denying her request to move away; (2) denying her motion for reconsideration; (3) not transferring sua sponte the case to Santa Clara County; and (4) denying her request for an order prohibiting Father from recording his telephone calls with her. The order is affirmed.

Darrell E. Arias entered a negotiated guilty plea to nine counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a))[1](counts 1 through 9); three counts of commercial burglary ( 459, 460, subd. (b)) (counts 10, 12, and 14); three counts of misdemeanor petty theft by using an access card ( 484g, subd. (a)) (counts 11, 13, and 15); and one count of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)) (count 16). The court sentenced him to eight years eight months in prison: the two-year lower term on count 1, consecutive terms of one year four months (one-third the middle term) on counts 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9; concurrent terms on counts 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16; and concurrent terms with full credit for time served on counts 11, 13, and 15. Arias appeals, contending the sentences on counts 11, 13, and 15 must be stayed ( 654) and the amount of the court security fees must be corrected. Court agree.

Leonardo P. Gomez entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and admitted he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced Gomez to 13 years in prisonthe middle term of three years for robbery in count 1 plus a consecutive 10-year enhancement for the personal use of a firearm. For count 2, the court imposed the same 13 year term for the robbery and the accompanying personal use of a firearm allegation to run concurrently. The judgment is affirmed.

J.G., mother of dependent children Jonathan G. and Brenda G. (together minors), appeals an order summarily denying her petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. J.G. contends her due process rights were violated when the court denied her modification petition without a hearing despite a showing she no longer suffered from a severe mental illness. Court affirm the order.

J.G. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
J.G.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

Catrina W. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
Catrina W.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

A jury found defendant guilty of conspiring to commit a crime (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1), bringing a controlled substance into a prison (Pen. Code, 4573) (count 2), and possessing a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) (count 3). As to count 3, the court found true the allegation that defendant suffered a prior felony conviction for transporting, selling, or giving away a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352). (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a).) The court also found true the allegations that defendant suffered four prior convictions for which he served prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). The court sentenced defendant to a determinate prison term of one year plus an indeterminate prison term of 25 years to life.[1] Defendant contends (1) the court erred by sentencing him to a one-year enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b); and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to strike his prior strike convictions. The People agree with defendants first contention, but disagree with defendants second contention. Court affirm the judgment.