CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Juan Jose Dorado (Dorado) appeals from a judgment after a plea of no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a)),[1]and first degree robbery ( 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)). Dorados sole contention on appeal is that the trial court violated section 654 by imposing concurrent terms of imprisonment for these two counts. For the reasons expressed below, Court modify the judgment and affirm.

George Joseph England appeals from a judgment that sentenced him to state prison after a jury found him guilty of felony child molestation. He argues the judgment must be reversed because the record on appeal is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Court disagree and affirm.

A jury convicted Gerardo Dominguez, Santiago Najar, Jose Perez, and Tomas Sandoval of felony counts for their participation in transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a); count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale ( 11378; count 2), and possession of more than $100,000 with intent to purchase methamphetamine or obtained as a result of its unlawful sale ( 11370.6, subd. (a); count 3). The jury also found true a weight enhancement on counts one and two because the methamphetamine exceeded 10 kilograms. (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.4, subd. (b)(3).) The defendants join in contending: (1) the trial court erred in declining to sever their trials or empanel separate juries; (2) the prosecutor should have disclosed whether investigators obtained wiretap evidence; (3) the trial court erred by not granting their motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence at the close of the prosecutions case (Pen. Code, 1118.1); (4) the trial court erred in excluding some evidence and admitting other evidence; (5) the trial court gave erroneous or incomplete instructions concerning the uncharged conspiracy and accomplice testimony; (6) the trial court erred by not staying the one-year sentence on count three for Najar, Dominguez, and Perez pursuant to Penal Code section 654; and (7) imposition of the upper term on Dominguezs stayed methamphetamine possession count violated the Sixth Amendment because the jury did not determine his involvement demonstrated planning and sophistication. Court conclude defendants sentencing contentions have merit, and therefore remand for resentencing, but Court affirm the judgment in all other respects.

West Cliff Lynch Associates, LLC (West Cliff) is the owner of the Clearview Court Mobilehome Park (Park) located in the City of Santa Cruz (City). Arturo Guerrero (Arturo) and Maria Guerrero (Maria) (collectively the Guerreros) are two of the Parks tenants and owners of a mobilehome unit located there. In late 2003, a dispute arose out of the Guerreros attempt to avail themselves of the benefits of a City ordinance providing for rent control to mobilehome tenants.[1] They did not make a timely election to enroll in the rent control program. The Guerreros, however, sought relief under an escape clause in the Ordinance that permits a mobilehome owner to submit an application for rent control eligibility to the Citys planning director within 45 days of the mobilehome owners gaining actual knowledge of the availability of rent control under the Ordinance. Their application was rejected by the City, but the Guerreros prevailed in an administrative appeal. West Cliffs petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenging that decision was denied by the court below.
On appeal, West Cliff argues that there was no substantial evidence supporting the administrative hearing officers conclusion that the Guerreros did not have actual knowledge of the availability of rent control under the Ordinance until on or about December 8, 2003, which was a date within 45 days of the filing of their application with the City. Additionally, West Cliff challenges the hearing officers jurisdiction over the matter. Court reject that jurisdictional challenge and conclude that there was substantial evidence supporting the hearing officers decision. Accordingly, the trial court did not err; Court affirm the denial of West Cliffs petition for writ of mandamus.

West Cliff Lynch Associates, LLC (West Cliff) is the owner of the Clearview Court Mobilehome Park (Park) located in the City of Santa Cruz (City). Ramon Orozco (Orozco) and Maxima Sanchez (Sanchez) (collectively Orozco/Sanchez) are two of the Parks tenants and owners of a mobilehome unit located there. In late 2003, a dispute arose out of Orozco/Sanchezs attempt to avail themselves of the benefits of a City ordinance providing for rent control to mobilehome tenants.[1] They did not make a timely election to enroll in the rent control program. Orozco/Sanchez, however, sought relief under an escape clause in the Ordinance that permits a mobilehome owner to submit an application for rent control eligibility to the Citys planning director within 45 days of the tenants gaining actual knowledge of the availability of rent control under the Ordinance. Their application was rejected by the City, but Orozco/Sanchez prevailed in an administrative appeal. West Cliffs petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenging that decision was denied by the court below.
On appeal, West Cliff argues that there was no substantial evidence supporting the administrative hearing officers conclusion that Orozco/Sanchez did not have actual knowledge of the availability of rent control under the Ordinance until on or about December 8, 2003, which was a date within 45 days of the filing of their application with the City. Court conclude that there was substantial evidence supporting the hearing officers decision. Accordingly, the trial court did not err; Court affirm the denial of West Cliffs petition for writ of mandamus.

A jury convicted defendant Rafael Guerrero of possessing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to formal probation for 18 months under Proposition 36 and suspended imposition of sentence. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in giving an instruction on constructive possession, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to a prosecutorial remark at closing argument, and that the court erred in failing to give an instruction on his extrajudicial statements. Finding no reversible error or ineffective assistance of counsel, Court affirm the judgment.

Karen H. appeals from the juvenile courts order ending her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 and denying modification under section 388. She claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her modification motion to reinstate reunification services and that there is no substantial evidence to support the courts determination that her parental rights must be ended. Court affirm the order.

Defendant Ladonna Sue Reed appeals from a judgment of conviction after she pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a)) and admitted the personal use of a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced her to a term of 21 years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

In this juvenile dependency proceeding, the father of a dependent child appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. He challenges the courts determination that the child is likely to be adopted. Court find substantial evidence to support the challenged finding, and Court affirm.

On June 19, 2006, a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] was filed alleging that the minor, Andre L., then age 15, committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, 242, 243, subd. (a)). The petition was dismissed without prejudice on August 15, 2006, after the minor paid restitution to the victim.
On February 27, 2007, a section 602 petition was filed alleging that the minor possessed a controlled substance, 3, 4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine, also known as MDMA (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); count 1, a felony), possessed 28.5 grams of marijuana or less (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b); count 4, a misdemeanor), and twice obstructed a peace officer (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1); counts 2 & 3, both misdemeanors). On April 19, 2007, another section 602 petition was filed alleging that the minor possessed for sale cocaine base and marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5, 11359; counts 1 & 2, both felonies), possessed 28.5 grams of marijuana or less (count 4, a misdemeanor), and committed misdemeanor battery (count 3). On May 25, 2007, the minor admitted the allegations as to counts 1 and 2 of both petitions, and the juvenile court dismissed the remaining allegations and continued the matter for a contested disposition hearing.

Plaintiff Douglas Shiepe (Shiepe) appeals the dismissal of his complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16) and the award of attorney fees against him and his counsel. Court find no error, and Court affirm.

Appellant Natalie Allmond contends that there is insufficient evidence to support her conviction for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and conspiracy to sell cocaine base (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant also seeks review of the trial courts in camera hearing pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Court find ample evidentiary support for the jurys conclusion that appellant and two coconspirators entered into an agreement to and did sell cocaine base. Additionally, Court find no abuse of discretion with respect to the in camera hearing. Court affirm the judgment.

Parents Amelia L. and L.S. challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the sustaining of a dependency petition for their two children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a). Court find the sustained allegation of the petition that the child was struck accidentally precludes a finding that the child suffered serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally as required by subdivision (a). Court reverse that portion of the order.

Joseph Howard Reynolds (Reynolds) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1]and forgery ( 470, subd. (d)), and the trial courts finding he previously had been convicted of two serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served seven prior prison terms ( 667.5, subdivision (b)). The trial court sentenced Reynolds to 13 years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.