CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Anthony Daniel Gonzales of second degree murder and found true, for purposes of a one-year sentence enhancement that, in committing the murder, defendant had personally used a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 years to life in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) instructing the jury in the language of CALJIC No. 5.54 (self-defense by an aggressor) and CALJIC No. 5.56 (self-defense re participants in mutual combat) without tailoring the instructions to the facts of the case, and (2) denying his motion for a new trial using an incorrect legal standard. In a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we ordered considered with the appeal, defendant raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Court disagree with defendant and affirm the judgment. Court also dispose of the habeas corpus petition by separate order filed this day.

Plaintiff Francisco Molina, Jr., acting in propria persona, appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award against him in favor of defendants Frys Electronics, Inc., et al. (collectively, Frys), on his claims for breach of contract, deceit, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Molina claims that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, and other Undue Means and that he complied with the statutory requisites for vacation of the award.

Defendant Dasarathi Raghunath appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate his 1992 pleas to a felony violation of Penal Code[1] section 647.6 and a misdemeanor violation of section 314.1. The motion alleged that the trial court and trial counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his pleas, which were now the basis of deportation proceedings against him. In a written order, the trial court denied the motion. Defendant timely appealed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. He has filed and we have reviewed his Appellants Supplemental Brief. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and considered the points raised in defendants brief. Having concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal, Court now affirm.

On August 1, 2006, after the court advised defendant of his Boykin/Tahl[1] rights, defendant waived those rights and pleaded guilty to the following charges contained in two informations. In case number CC500804, defendant pleaded guilty to first degree attempted premeditated murder of Dennis Jacquez (Pen. Code, 187, 664, 189, count one).[2] Defendant admitted the allegation that during the commission of the crime alleged in count one, he was a principal and a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm. (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (a)(1).) In addition, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a), count two); vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a), 666.5, count three); possession for sale of controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) while armed (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c), count four); and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b), count five). Defendant admitted that he had served two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).)
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Frank Manuel Abila appeals from his conviction after entry of pleas of no contest to all but two of the 36 felony and misdemeanor charges filed against him, pursuant to a plea disposition under which he would receive no more than 16 years in state prison. Thereafter, defendant brought a motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to 16 years in prison. Defendant timely appealed. No certificate of probable cause was obtained. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. The period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.

Sandra Louise Noble, a bail bond agent, and American Surety Company (ASC) were the named defendants in an action for the wrongful arrest of a man for whom Noble had written two bail bonds (the Saldana action). ASC was the surety for bail bonds written by Noble as subagent for ASCs direct agent, A&L Bail Bonds. After the Saldana action settled, ASC brought an action against A&L Bail Bonds and its owner, Alina Sierra Castor (collectively, Castor), to recover settlement costs and attorney fees it incurred in defending the Saldana action. Castor cross-complained against ASC and Noble for equitable indemnity of those costs and fees. Noble cross-complained against Castor for reimbursement of business expenses in an unrelated bail bond matter. The judgment following a court trial ordered that ASC recover $184,231.37 from Castor as damages for the Saldana action and the present action; that Castor was entitled to an offset of $52,327.90 by way of her cross-complaint against ASC; that Castor recover $65,613 from Noble as partial equitable indemnity by way of her cross-complaint against Noble; and that Noble take nothing by way of her cross-complaint against Castor. Noble appeals the judgment ordering her to indemnify Castor and awarding her nothing in her cross complaint. She contends the courts findings do not support a conclusion that Castor was entitled to indemnification from her, that the courts findings are not supported by substantial evidence, and that the courts statement of decision is defective for failing to explain why she was not entitled to reimbursement of business expenses from Castor. Castor cross-appeals against Noble, contending the court erroneously excluded evidence that would have entitled her to a larger amount of indemnification from Noble. Alternatively, she contends the courts amount of indemnification awarded is disproportionate to Nobles fault, and that there is insufficient evidence to support the courts finding that she was partially responsible for ASCs damages. The judgment is reversed to the extent it orders that Castor shall recover partial equitable indemnity plus statutory costs from Noble, and it fails to determine the issue of Nobles entitlement to recover expenses in the Castrejon matter. It is remanded with directions to make findings on the latter issue.

In a declaratory relief action interpreting an insurance policy issued by respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), the trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm, ruling that the policy did not cover appellant Anne Mairesses newly acquired car. As a result, appellant Kelly Borden was not entitled to recover for her personal injuries under that policy. On appeal from the subsequent judgment, Mairesse and Borden contend that an exclusionary provision of the policy was invalid, making the summary judgment erroneous. Court affirm the judgment.

Christopher Herron (Herron) appeals from a judgment entered against him after a jury found him liable to respondent Meyer Corporation U.S. (Meyer) for fraudulent concealment. Herron contends that Meyers fraudulent concealment claim was time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d), and was precluded by res judicata. Court affirm the judgment.

Dwayne Curtis Reed, II, appeals his convictions of first degree murder and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 187, 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true the allegation that he personally used a handgun in the commission of the murder. (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d).) He asserts prosecutorial misconduct and admission of hearsay from the victim as reversible error. The judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision

Defendant William Hackney was convicted of multiple counts of rape and related sexual offenses, and sentenced to 77 years in prison. He contends the court misinstructed the jury; that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally deficient representation; and that his sentence violates Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S.__ [127 S.Ct. 856]. Court affirm.

Defendant, a minor, appeals from an order committing him to home supervision for a maximum term of one year six months. Court affirm.

Sixteen-year-old K.S. appeals from a dispositional order placing her on probation subject to the condition that she have no contact with her 20-year-old sister C.S. Although no objection was raised to this condition in the juvenile court, K.S. contends here that the condition is unconstitutionally overbroad. To the extent that the objection has not been forfeited by K.S.s failure to raise the objection below, we reject the contention. To the extent there may be merit in the objection, it has been forfeited, although K.S. retains the right to request the juvenile court to modify or limit the restriction.
The dispositional order of the juvenile court is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Billy Roy White of one count of sale of a controlled substance. At Whites trial, the prosecutor introduced a photographic exhibit, Peoples exhibit 1, identified as the drugs White sold to an undercover police officer. Peoples exhibit 1 was not produced before trial, and it was, arguably, inconsistent with another photograph, defense exhibit A, which was produced before trial. After the People rested, Whites trial counsel asked to recall officers to ask them about defense exhibit A. The trial court denied the request. White now appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion and denied him his right to present a complete defense. He also contends that there is insufficient evidence of his prior prison terms. Court remand the case for a retrial on the prison priors. Court otherwise affirm the judgment.