CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Richard Lyle Sanderson, Jr. appeals from a sentence imposed by the trial court pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. He contends that imposition of an upper term violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. He also argues the trial court erred by using the same aggravating factors to impose upper terms for both his offense and an enhancement. Court find no Sixth Amendment violation, but Court remand for resentencing due to conceded error in the courts dual use of aggravating factors.

Defendant Salvador David Stabile appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea in each of three cases pursuant to a plea bargain. Defendants counsel advises this court that her examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has advised his client in writing that a Wende brief was filed. Defendant has personally filed a supplemental brief in this case. Court agree with counsel that the record reveals no arguable issues and affirm.

Appellant Nicholas T. appeals from a dispositional order entered after a contested jurisdictional hearing in which the juvenile court found he violated Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a) (vandalism over $400 damage). His counsel raises no arguable issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Judgment is affirmed.

This is the second appeal in this case. In a previous decision, filed January 17, 2007, we remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing of appellant after he had pled no contest to one count of felony vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence while driving under the influence. (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (c)(3).) (People v. Ford (Jan. 17, 2007, A111882 [nonpub. opn.].) After the trial court resentenced appellant to the midterm of two years (it had previously imposed an aggravated sentence and denied probation, a sentence which we vacated in our earlier decision), he filed a notice of appeal from the sentence and, thereafter, a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which he asks this court to examine the record and determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing. Court have done so, find none, and hence affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

At a change of plea proceeding, after a full advisement of his rights, Demosthenes J. Caicedo, represented by counsel, pleaded no contest to one count of felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377) and admitted that he had three prior felony convictions including a prior strike conviction for robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subd. (c)(1); 1203, subd. (e)(4)). Caicedo was advised, and told the court he understood, that the maximum sentence that could be imposed was a total term of 32 months, but that the court would consider a Romero motion (People v.Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) to strike his prior robbery conviction, a serious felony under Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(19).
At sentencing, the court explained its reasons for denying Caicedos Romero motion. The court also explained its reasons for denying Caicedos request for probation and drug treatment under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, 1210.1 et seq.). The court imposed the promised sentence of 32 months, which included the low term of 16 months doubled because of the prior strike conviction. The judgment is affirmed.

Jeremiah S. (Father), the father of six-year-old N.S. and one-year-old D.S., petitions under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 to vacate an order of the juvenile court setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 that may result in termination of his parental rights. Father argues that the evidence presented at the 18 month review hearing was insufficient to allow the court to conclude that returning the children to his care would create a substantial risk of detriment to their physical or emotional safety and well being. Court conclude substantial evidence supports the courts order and deny the petition on its merits.

An attorney brought a suit for declaratory relief, asserting she was entitled to funds remaining in a client trust account that contained the proceeds of a successful lawsuit she handled for her then-clients. She also sought a declaration that another attorneys assignment to her of his lien on funds in the account, and her subsequent disbursement of funds to herself under that assignment, was proper. The clients asserted they were entitled to the funds in the trust account, and brought a cross-complaint for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered awarding the clients damages on their claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding the attorney compensation for certain services in the form of a credit against her liability for damages, and ordering all funds in the client trust account paid to the clients. The clients then sought and obtained an award of attorney fees, and the attorney appealed. Court affirm both the judgment and the award of attorney fees.

Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians (Tribe) appeals from a $309,950 judgment entered in favor of Vince Torres on his cross-complaint for services provided. Tribe claims the cross-complaint is barred by the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. Torres cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion for additur and/or new trial. Court affirm the judgment and dismiss the cross appeal as untimely.

Gilbert Quiroz was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated kidnapping, simple kidnapping, carjacking and robbery with firearm and gang allegations found true. Cecilio Alvarado was convicted of assault with a firearm, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, carjacking and robbery with firearm and gang allegations found true. Both appeal, asserting claims of sentencing error and ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

Appellant Sergio Gutierrez was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of carjacking in violation of Penal Code section 215, subdivision (a). The jury found true the allegation that appellant personally used a knife in the commission of the crime within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced appellant to the upper term of nine years in state prison for the carjacking conviction, plus the upper term of three years for the knife use enhancement.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the imposition of the upper term violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as set forth in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. While appellant's case was pending on appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. __ [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856] and the California Supreme Court issued its opinions in People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 and People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825. At our request, the parties submitted letter briefs addressing the effect of People v. Black, supra, and People v. Sandoval, supra. Appellant maintains his contention that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. Court see no violation of appellant's Sixth Amendment rights. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.

Helen Jepsen appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court struck her cross-complaint for declaratory relief as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.) Respondents, James Petrovich et al., were awarded $15,000 attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute ( 425.16, subd. (c).) They cross-appeal, contending that the trial court erred in not awarding $93,945.88 incurred in defense of the entire lawsuit. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Appellant Lionel Temero Jacobs appeals from a judgment entered after the jury convicted him of one count of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder, in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a). The jury found true the allegations that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)); that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm ( 12022.53, subds. (c) & (e)(1)); that a principal personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)); and that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which caused great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). The trial court found true that appellant had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The judgment is affirmed.

Maxwell Lee Coulson appeals a judgment following conviction of possession of methamphetamine, with a finding that he served a prior prison term. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) Court affirm.