CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c); further statutory references are to the Penal Code; counts one & two) and found that he personally used a firearm in the commission of both counts ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to state prison for 12 years, consisting of the low term of two years on count one plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement; a concurrent term was imposed on count two. Defendant was awarded 374 days of custody credit and 56 days of conduct credit; ordered to make restitution to his victims; and ordered to pay a $2,400 restitution fine ( 1202.4), a $2,400 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked ( 1202.45), a $40 court security fee ( 1465.8), and classification and booking fees.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

S.L. (appellant), the mother of K.W. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant contends the juvenile court violated her right to due process by (1) appointing a guardian ad litem for her, and (2) failing to hold a Marsden[2]hearing after she advised the court she had serious concerns with her appointed counsel. Respondent, Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services (the department), agrees with appellant that the appointment of a guardian ad litem was erroneous but argues the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The department also asserts appellant abandoned her request for substitute counsel. Agreeing with the department on both points, Court affirm the order terminating parental rights.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate challenging respondent courts order denying his request for a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 1237.5;[1]Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)[2].) Petitioner contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his application for a certificate of probable cause following a lengthy motion to withdraw his plea on the grounds that it was coerced by the court and counsel, it was made after a last minute amendment to the information, trial counsel was unprepared and failed to properly advise petitioner of the defenses to the charge and consequences of the plea, and trial counsel was ineffective.
After receiving opposition to the writ petition, we notified the parties that Court were considering the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171.) We conclude the trial court did abuse its discretion by denying appellants application for a certificate of probable cause. Court issue the peremptory writ.

W.M. (appellant), the mother of A.M. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating appellants parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395; further section references are to this code unless otherwise specified.) She contends that the court erred in failing to apply a statutory exception to termination of parental rights ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) and that the court and the Human Services Agency (HSA) violated the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) Agreeing with the latter claim only, Court conditionally vacate the order terminating parental rights and remand the matter for inquiry into possible Indian heritage and notice to the relevant tribal entities if necessary.

A jury convicted Melvin A. Weston of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), driving under the influence of drugs (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)), and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a)). In a separate proceeding, Weston admitted he had a previous strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b) through (i)). The trial court sentenced Weston to six years in state prison.

Defendant entered an open guilty plea to 14 felony counts, consisting of six counts of unlawfully obtaining and using another persons personal information for purchases (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a); counts 1, 5, 8, 11, 12 & 13), five counts of unlawfully acquiring access cards ( 484e, subd. (d); counts 4, 6, 7, 9 & 10), two counts of grand theft ( 487, subd. (a); counts 2 & 14), and one count of second degree burglary ( 459, 460, subd. (b); count 3). Defendant was sentenced to eight years eight months in prison, and appeals.

A jury convicted defendant of attempted premeditated and deliberate murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187), during which he discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subd. (d)) and possession of a handgun by an ex-felon. ( 12021, subd. (a)(1).) He was sentenced to prison for life, plus 25 years to life, plus 2 years. He appeals claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial and in sentencing him. We reject his first contention but agree that the trial court violated section 654 in failing to stay the term for the possession conviction. Court therefore affirm the convictions and the sentence for the attempted murder and its enhancement, order the trial court to stay the 2 year term for the possession conviction, and Court direct it to amend the minutes of the sentencing hearing and abstracts of judgment to show that the 2 year term for the possession conviction is stayed and to correct other errors in those documents called to our attention by the People.

Defendant Mark Anthony Dodson appeals following his guilty plea to a domestic violence offense. Defendant was placed on probation for three years subject to a number of terms and conditions. On appeal, defendant argues that three of the probation conditions are invalid and unconstitutional as applied to him. We agree with defendants claim that the probation condition requiring him to notify his probation officer of any pets violates all three of Lents[1]probation criteria and is unconstitutionally overbroad. However, Court reject defendants other contentions, as Court find that the field interrogation term and the search term are valid. Consequently, Court direct the trial court to modify the pet condition and in all other respects affirm the judgment.

Defendant Philip Patin was drunk and spoiling for a fight. He and his two codefendants managed to get into one with a group of strangers at a gas station. When the dust settled, one of the strangers had been stabbed; Patin, too, had been stabbed. Patin did not have a knife, but one or both of his codefendants did. Patin was found guilty on three counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) Codefendant Jeremy Fields was likewise found guilty on three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, plus an enhancement on one count for personally inflicting great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a).) Fields was also found guilty on one count of vandalism. (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a).) Codefendant Nathan Clardy was acquitted of assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism; on two counts, however, the jury deadlocked on the lesser included charge of simple assault (Pen. Code, 240), and the trial court declared a mistrial on those counts as against Clardy. Thus, Patins convictions were necessarily based on the theory that he aided and abetted Fields.Patin was placed on probation for four years, on terms and conditions including the service of a 150 day jail term. Court find no error. Hence, Court affirm.

Defendant was charged with 21 counts of committing lewd acts on two girls under age 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a);[1]counts 1-21) and one count of attempting to dissuade a witness, his girlfriend, from testifying ( 136.1, subd. (a); count 22). The alleged victims, Jane Does 1 and 2, were daughters of defendants girlfriend. It was further alleged that the offenses were committed against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5).
A jury found defendant guilty of 11 of the 21 lewd act charges (counts 1-10 & 21) and the witness dissuasion charge (count 22). It also found the multiple-victim enhancement allegation true. Defendant was found not guilty of the remaining charges. He was sentenced to a single term of 15 years to life ( 667.61, subd. (e)(5)) and appeals. Court affirm.

On appeal, defendant Carl Jerome Hill contends that there was no substantial evidence that he possessed a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350. For the reasons set forth below, Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of selling heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a))[1]and possessing heroin for sale. ( 11351) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found that defendant had suffered a prior drug conviction. ( 11370.2, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to prison for seven years.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
Court offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which, after being translated from Spanish into English, has been read and considered.

A jury found defendant guilty of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a)) (count 1), carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)) (count 2), being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3), unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) (count 4), and resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count 5). Including enhancements, the court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate state prison term of 86 years to life. Defendant appealed and this court directed the trial court to resentence defendant, which the trial court did. Court conclude the sentence must be reversed, primarily due to the trial courts failure to pronounce judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count 1Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)), possession of an assault weapon ( 12280, subd. (b)), and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person ( 12316, subd. (b)), all committed for the intent to benefit a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence supports his convictions. Court find the verdicts supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, affirm the judgment below.