CA Unpub Decisions

In March 1997, defendant Albert Francisco Briceno pled guilty to, and was convicted of, felony discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, 246) while armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on three years formal probation on the condition that he serve 365 days in jail. He was given credit for 210 days served and 105 days good work time. (People v. Briceno (Super. Ct. Orange County, 1997, No. 96WF1735).)
Court have examined the record and found no other issues to argue. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The order is affirmed.

John A. and Michelle J. are the biological parents of Jessie A., now two years old, who was declared a dependent of the juvenile court in April 2006. At the six month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated Johns reunification services, due to his noncompliance with his case plan, but continued reunification services to Michelle for an additional six months. John appealed; Court affirm.

Petitioners Ali Danny Talebi and David Mehrdad Talebi (the Talebis) seek extraordinary relief from an order striking as untimely their motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 to disqualify the judge. (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Finding plain error, Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance directing the trial court to grant the disqualification motion.

A jury convicted defendant Cameron Brown of first degree murder and found true for sentence enhancement purposes an allegation that he had personally used a firearm causing great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life for the conviction and imposed a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the enhancement. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) permitting the jury to infer guilt from a witnesss refusal to testify, (2) admitting evidence over objection that the witness possessed a gun and a large amount of cash in his car at the time of the murder, (3) limiting the testimony of his expert witness, (4) denying his motion to disclose the identity of confidential informants, and (5) denying his motion for a new trial grounded on juror misconduct. 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.

In this action for employment discrimination and wrongful termination, plaintiff Ronald Preston alleged that he had been harassed, discriminated and retaliated against, and wrongfully discharged by his employer, defendant Sasco Electric (SASCO), and his supervisor, defendant Kevin Kincaid. The superior court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the untimeliness of plaintiff's claim and on the insufficiency of the evidence of intentional discrimination. On appeal, plaintiff challenges the court's evaluation of the evidence, its factual inferences, and its legal conclusions with respect to all of the causes of action. Court agree with plaintiff that triable issues exist in this lawsuit. Accordingly, Court must reverse the judgment.

David M., a minor, appeals an order of the juvenile court committing him to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) He challenges his commitment to DJJ. Court affirm.

In 1980, Stephen Samble (Samble), who is a California state prison inmate, shot and killed Richard Caccamo. He pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. As a result, Samble was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. His minimum eligible parole date was February 14, 1995, over 12 years ago. Appellant, the acting warden of the training facility where Samble is incarcerated, appeals from an order of the Santa Clara County Superior Court granting habeas relief to Samble. The superior court's order granting Samble's petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

Justin Thomas Jackson Angus appeals after jury trial from his conviction of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a).) He contends that the trial courts response to an inquiry from the jury during deliberations was improper and prejudiced his defense. Finding no error, Court affirm.

This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of that courts decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S., 127 S.Ct. 856, 868-871 (Cunningham). The parties have provided supplemental briefing addressing both Cunningham and the California Supreme Courts recent interpretation of Cunningham in People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II). After further consideration in light of both Cunningham and Black II, Court affirm the judgment and sentence.

David A. Johnson appeals his conviction of one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, 288.5). The jury also found true an allegation that defendant had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5). The court sentenced defendant to the aggravated term of 16 years, and a consecutive one year term for the prior prison term enhancement.
Defendant contends that the court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress admissions he made in a police interview after waiving his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436); (2) admitting evidence of defendants violent acts and association with the Hells Angels; and (3) imposing the upper term based upon aggravating sentencing factors not found by a jury.
Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

A jury found Henry Inocencio guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)[1]) and of being a felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true allegations that Inocencio personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and that he intentionally fired a handgun from a motor vehicle at another person outside the vehicle. Inocencio was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, Inocencio contends that the trial court committed reversible error by (1) denying his Wheeler motion, (2) excluding evidence that someone else was the shooter; and (3) admitting evidence of a confidential communication between a witness and her attorney. Court reject each of these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of assault, burglary, and other crimes after he assaulted a woman outside her apartment. The victim refused to testify at trial, and her teenage son, who witnessed the assault, was unavailable. The trial court admitted the tape from a 911 call made by the victims son soon after the assault and statements made by the victim to medical personnel during her treatment for the injuries suffered in the assault. Defendant contends that this evidence was admitted in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Defendant also contends that his cross examination of another witness was improperly limited, that the trial judge made improper comments that amounted to vouching for the credibility of police witnesses, that the court erred in polling the jury, and that errors were committed in sentencing. Court modify the judgment by staying sentence on three counts, but the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Defendant Mohammed Shamim was convicted following a jury trial of two felonies and five misdemeanors in connection with his involvement in a fight that started in a shopping mall after he hit a teenaged girl in the face. On appeal, he challenges his conviction for misdemeanor vandalism (which was originally charged as a felony). (Pen. Code, 594.) Court conclude that vandalism is a general intent crime, and that defendants conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant also claims that the trial court erred when it imposed a probation supervision fee without determining his ability to pay the fee. Court affirm the judgment, but order the trial court to correct a clerical error in its minute order with respect to the fee.

In this marital dissolution proceeding, Norman J. Valdez, Jr. (Norman) appeals from the trial courts judgment dividing marital property. Court conclude that the courts rulings are supported by substantial evidence, and affirm the judgment.