CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Luke Hasler was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and kidnapping and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He contends his conviction must be reversed for three reasons: (1) the court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of uncharged misconduct; (2) the court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on mistake of fact; and (3) the statutory special circumstance for murder committed during a kidnapping is unconstitutionally vague. Court reject all three reasons, find no prejudicial error, and therefore affirm.

In October 2003, a jury found Alvin Smart guilty of three counts of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, 314.1[1]) and one count of falsely identifying himself ( 148.9, subd. (a)). In January 2006, a second jury determined that Smart was sane in December 1996 and October 1997 when he committed the charged offenses. Smart was sentenced to a Three Strikes sentence of 75 years to life in state prison. On appeal, Smart seeks reversal of the judgment on a variety of grounds including the erroneous denial of several motions, insufficiency of the evidence, instructional error, failure to properly respond to a jury question and ineffective assistance of counsel. Smart also contends that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we consider along with this appeal, Smart seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground of judicial bias. Court deny the writ petition and affirm the judgment and sentence.

A modification decision.

A jury convicted defendant Charles McCovey of misdemeanor assault and making a criminal threat against his cousin, Alisa McCovey. Court hold it was reversible error for the trial court to admit Alisas preliminary hearing testimony as an unavailable witness under Evidence Code sections 1291 and 240. Court therefore reverse the judgment.

Defendant Michael Claude Wilen is a lifetime criminal. In late 2005, he and Thomas Bonnetta were discovered operating a methamphetamine lab in Bonnettas home. As a result of this discovery, Wilen and Bonetta were charged with numerous drug-related charges; the information also had equally numerous enhancement allegations based on their considerable number of past convictions.
Pursuant to Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 (Franks), Wilen moved for an evidentiary hearing to traverse and quash the search warrant used to search the house. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it was procedurally deficient. Wilen and Bonnetta then plead guilty to all of the charges and admitted all of the enhancement allegations against them, following which Wilen was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of six years and eight months.
Wilen filed a timely notice of appeal. His sole contention is that his motion was erroneously denied. Court conclude there was no error in the trial courts ruling. However, the People also appealed, and we have concluded in A115732, filed on November 15, 2007, that imposition of the sentences for Wilen and Bonnetta were defective because the trial court did not comply with the formalities required by Penal Code section 1385. Accordingly, Court reverse as to the sentence but otherwise affirm the judgment of Wilens conviction.

This appeal comes to us following a finding by the juvenile court that defendant committed the offenses of assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and evading arrest (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)), with associated enhancements for personal use of a deadly weapon, a car, in the commission of the two offenses (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (b)(1)), as alleged in an amended petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.[1] Following a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered defendant removed from the custody of his parents and committed to a county facility, Camp Wilmont Sweeney, for a maximum term of confinement of nine years. In this appeal defendant complains that the dispositional order of removal and placement at Camp Sweeney is not supported by evidence of his best interests. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts decision to remove defendant from his parents home, and affirm the judgment.

John Morra, the son of Louis Morra, deceased, appeals from a judgment and order rejecting his contention that Louiss property should be distributed pursuant to the laws of intestacy, and ruling that any residue of Louiss probate estate should be distributed to the trustee of the Louis and Bobbye T. Morra Revocable Living Trust (the Trust). Court affirm.

Angela L. (Mother) seeks an extraordinary writ to set aside an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County, Juvenile Division, which denied further reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for her daughter S.L. (born November 2000). As discussed below, Court find no merit in Mothers claim of error and deny her petition on the merits.

Jose Luis Tejeda appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of selling a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) with court findings that he suffered three prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (d)). The court sentenced him to prison for eight years. Appellant claims trial and sentencing error occurred, and asks this court to review sealed transcripts and documents pertaining to his Pitchess[1]motion. Court affirm the judgment.

Jemal Suyin Reese appeals following revocation of probation previously granted upon his plea of no contest to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) with an admission he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (d)) and two prior felony convictions for which he served separate prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced him to prison for eight years. Appellant claims the trial court committed sentencing errors. Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

A jury convicted defendant James Anthony Guerrero of felony possession of a fictitious note (counterfeit money) with intent to defraud (Pen. Code, 476),[1]felony assault ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), and giving false information to a peace officer ( 148.9), a misdemeanor. The jury also found that defendant had four prior strike convictions ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and that he was sane at the time of the offenses.
Sentenced to state prison for concurrent terms of 25 years to life for each felony and a concurrent jail term for the misdemeanor, defendant appeals. He contends the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to (1) require the prosecution to disclose the criminal history of a potential witness, and (2) instruct the jury regarding the prosecutions failure to produce records relating to a drug container found in defendants pocket. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Uriel Chavez Maldonado was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to cultivate marijuana (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, 11358) and conspiracy to possess marijuana for sale (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, 11359). The trial court suspended execution of upper term sentences on each count and placed defendant on probation for three years.
Defendant appeals, raising the following claims: (1) there was insufficient evidence of intent to support his convictions, (2) comments during voir dire made by one of the prospective jurors prejudiced the jury panel, and (3) upper term sentences violated the holding in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham). Court find merit only in defendants sentencing claim and shall remand the matter for resentencing. In addition, following supplemental briefing requested by this court, the parties agree that the evidence supports a conviction of only one count of conspiracy. Court modify the judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff Dominga Flores unsuccessfully sought injunctive relief in an abatement proceeding to prevent the execution of a warrant issued in the proceeding that authorized demolition of a building she owned on East Main Street in downtown Stockton. She appealed from the orders denying the preliminary injunction and rehearing, and petitioned this court for a writ of supersedeas. Court denied the writ in March 2003. The demolition took place thereafter as scheduled. Court later dismissed her appeal in August 2003 for her failure to file an opening brief. Court therefore affirm the judgment of dismissal.