CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from a judgment following his plea of no contest and imposition of sentence. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Defendant has been advised by counsel that he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to this courts attention. He has not done so.Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

Following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court continued defendant Alejandro L., as a ward of the court and committed him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DJF) (formerly known as the California Youth Authority) for a maximum term of four years. Defendant objects to his commitment to the DJF, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not placing him in a less restrictive county-level program. Court affirm.

Pursuant to People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, appellant appeals from the sentence imposed upon her and the validity of a no contest plea she had earlier entered to one count of first degree residential burglary and one count of making terrorist threats. (Pen. Code, 459, 422.) She asks us to examine the record in the trial court and determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing and, then, consideration by us. Court have done so, find none, and hence affirms the orders appealed from.

Defendant Patrick Dewin McDaniel appeals from judgment imposing a seven-year prison term following his guilty plea to the charges of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle and possessing marijuana for sale. His attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting the court to independently review the record for potential error.[1] Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, defendants counsel noted three issues that arguably might warrant relief. Following the courts independent review of the record, counsel were directed to submit supplemental briefing on four questions concerning the propriety of the sentence. After reviewing the supplemental letter briefs submitted by defendants attorney and the Attorney General, we conclude that the trial court twice impermissibly made dual use of sentencing factors to aggravate the terms imposed. Although defendant failed to object in the trial court, we deem it appropriate to consider the issue, and conclude that the matter should be remanded for resentencing.
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Counsel appointed for defendant Matthew Miceli has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. Court have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

A modification decision.

Beatriz Alejandra Sanchez appeals the judgment entered on her cross-complaint against her sister Ana M. Gonzalez, Ana's[1]husband Jose A. Gonzalez, and Jose's brother Gerardo T. Gonzalez (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Gonzalezes). Beatriz contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying reformation of grant deeds whereby the Gonzalezes and Beatriz and Ana's parents, Manuel and Maria Sanchez, hold title to a parcel of residential property as joint tenants. She also claims (1) the joint tenancy created by the original deeds was void because it lacked the requisite "four unities;" (2) the court should have imposed an equitable trust accounting for her monetary contributions to the acquisition and maintenance of the property; (3) the court erred in allowing an appraiser to testify without her approval; and (4) she is entitled to costs as the prevailing party. Court affirm.

In this marital dissolution action, Robert Scott MacDonald (Scott) appeals from judgment on reserved issues entered on June 16, 2006. The trial court denied Scott's request for a change of custody upon relocation of the custodial parent, Louise Jean Wheeler (Louise). Scott contends that the court violated his constitutional right to due process because it did not allow sufficient time for Scott to present evidence at the initial 2004 hearing, and because a further hearing was delayed for more than a year. Scott also challenges orders imposing monetary sanctions and awarding attorney's fees to Louise. Court affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment for specific performance, ordering appellants Renee Gaon, Steven Gaon, Alexander Gaon and Olympic Alameda Ventures (OAV) to sell a property at 1807 Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles to respondent Meruelo Properties. Court affirm.

Oscar Rodriguez was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against a child. On appeal, he contends that the admission of evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 deprived him of a fair trial, due process, and equal protection and that his sentence is unconstitutional under Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). Court affirm.

Onofre Serrano appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to selling/transporting/offering to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and his admission that he previously suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(d).) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court struck the prior strike conviction and placed appellant on formal probation for three years under certain terms and conditions, including that he serve 541 days in county jail with credit given for 541 days. Appellant requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause. The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that during the early morning hours of August 8, 2005, in Long Beach, appellant sold rock cocaine to a confidential informant. The judgment is affirmed.

Deonte Andre Johnson ended a love triangle by putting one fatal bullet into his rivals head. The jury convicted him of murder. Johnson says he did not get a fair trial because a threat poisoned the jurys deliberation. The trial judge carefully investigated this threat, however, and properly contained the problem. Johnson also says the court sentenced him incorrectly, but this argument fails too. Court therefore affirm, except we modify the judgment to eliminate the local custody credits to which Johnson was not entitled.

Wagner Ubaldo Inga appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his no contest plea to a felony. He argues his motion should have been granted because he was not properly advised about the immigration consequences of his plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5. Court conclude the advice he received before entering his plea substantially complied with that statute.

Jose Trinidad Esquival Ruiz appeals the judgment entered after he pled guilty to two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (b)) and one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11378). He also admitted that he personally used a firearm in committing the assaults ( 12022.5), and that he was armed with a firearm during commission of the possession offense ( 12022, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced him to a total of eight years in state prison, consisting of six years on the primary assault count (the low term of three years plus three years for the personal firearm use allegation), plus a consecutive eight months (one-third the midterm) for the possession count and a consecutive 16 months for the associated firearm enhancement. His sole contention on appeal is that the imposition of consecutive sentences violated his jury trial and due process rights. (Cunningham v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856]; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296.) Court affirm.