CA Unpub Decisions

Jesse Allen Cullen appeals the revocation of probation and imposition of sentence, upon his admission of the charged probation violation. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks for record review of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Court have reviewed the record and affirm.

Petitioner Jerry F. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.22)terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his daughter K. and his son W. Petitioner claims the juvenile court should have returned the children to his custody because he had substantially complied with the case plan. Court deny the petition.

A jury convicted Ramon Soto of premeditated attempted murder (count 1) and first-degree murder (count 2), in both of which Soto used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death and furthered the interests of a gang.[1] In a bifurcated hearing after a jury waiver, the court found Soto had one serious conviction qualifying as a strike, and two prison term, prior felony convictions.[2] The court imposed an aggregate 135 years-to-life sentence: on count 1, 15 years-to-life pursuant to the gang enhancement, doubled to 30 years-to-life as a second strike, plus a consecutive 25 years-to-life for discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury, for a total of 55 years-to-life; on count 2, 25 years-to-life, doubled to 50 years-to-life as a second strike, plus a consecutive 25 years-to-life for discharging a firearm causing death, for a total of 75 years to life; and a consecutive five years for the prior serious felony conviction. The court struck the prior prison term enhancements for sentencing purposes.
Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Frank Perez appeals the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, 187.) Perez admitted two prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subs. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court sentenced Perez to a prison term of 85 years to life. Court reject Perezs various claims of error and affirm the judgment as modified to include a mandatory $20 court security fee.

Miguel Munoz appeals his conviction by jury of home invasion robbery in concert with another (count 1), first degree burglary (count 2), false imprisonment by violence (counts 3, 6), witness dissuasion (counts 4, 7), and carjacking (counts 8, 9). (Pen. Code, 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A), 459, 236, 136.1, subd. (b)(1), 215, subd. (a).)[1] The jury found that appellant personally used a firearm in the commission of all such offenses. ( 12022.53, subd. (b) [counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].) The jury also convicted his codefendant, Henry Alvarado, of those crimes, as well as other crimes (forgery, commercial burglary and grand theft) that were not charged against appellant. The trial court dismissed the count 5 robbery charge and sentenced appellant to state prison for 32 years. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that the trial court committed sentencing error. Court affirm.

A jury found Florentino Yam Medina guilty of nine counts of a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a))[1]and one count of anal or genital penetration of a child by a foreign object ( 289, subd. (j)). The jury also found that Medina committed the offenses against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivisions (b), (c) and (e)(5).
The trial court sentenced Medina to three consecutive 15 year to life terms on counts 1, 5 and 8. The trial court also sentenced Medina to the six-year midterm on each of the remaining counts to run concurrently with the 45 year to life term. Court affirm.

Andres Padilla was granted probation after a jury convicted him of grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (b)(3)) and grand theft by fraudulent use of an access card or account information ( 484g, subd. (a)). He appeals, contending that the trial court erred in not sua sponte giving a jury unanimity instruction. Court affirm.

food vendor has sued an airline and the airlines meal preparer for allegedly breaching a contract to purchase products from the vendor. The trial court sustained demurrers to most of the complaint, without leave to amend. The vendors attorney withdrew from the case. The vendor, a corporation, did not hire new counsel, though state law prohibits it from representing itself. The trial court issued an OSC regarding the corporations lack of representation. After a hearing, the court dismissed the case: the absence of counsel prejudiced defendants efforts to prepare for the upcoming trial, and there was no indication that the vendor would hire counsel in the foreseeable future. Court affirm.

In this dissolution proceeding, Wendy Leon (Wife) agreed to purchase Mark Leon's (Husband) interest in the family residence. In financing the purchase, Wife refinanced a loan secured by the residence, incurring a prepayment penalty. Husband sought an order requiring Wife to pay the entire penalty. Husband attempts to appeal the order denying his motion. Because no final judgment has been entered, the order is not appealable. Nevertheless, Court elect to treat the attempted appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate. Court deny the petition.

A modification decision.

John Weber appeals from the judgment entered following revocation of probation. He had previously pleaded nolo contendere to second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211.) The trial court sentenced him to prison for three years. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he had violated the conditions of his probation. Court affirm.

Guadalupe G. (father) and Rhianna G. (mother) appeal the trial court's orders terminating their parental rights to their four children, Karina G., born in February 1997, Mercy G., born in May 2000, Gino G., born in July 2002 and Sophia G., born in May 2004. Mother and father contend the trial court erred because there is substantial evidence that they regularly visited the children and that the children would benefit from continuing the parental relationship. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) In addition, father contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a continuing visitation order after it had terminated parental rights. Court affirm.

Appellant Austin Stephen Hess subleased a room from Derek Morgan. He was bitten by Morgan's dog. He alleges that respondents Abel and Celia Mosqueda (the Mosquedas), the property owners and Morgan's lessors, are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Hess's complaint for negligence and strict liability against the Mosquedas was resolved by summary judgment in their favor on the grounds that the Mosquedas had no agency or employment relationship with the dog owner and had no vicarious liability for Hess's injuries.
Court conclude that summary judgment was properly granted because, as we shall explain, simply permitting a lessee to sublease does not thereby make the lessee the agent of the lessor. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Augustine Alejo appeals a judgment of conviction entered after he expressly waived his constitutional rights and pleaded nolo contendere to second degree robbery, and admitted allegations of prior serious felony strike convictions and service of prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 211, 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), & 667.5, subd. (b).)[1] Alejo received a negotiated sentence of 16 years, consisting of a 5-year upper term for second degree robbery (doubled), a 5-year enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a), and a one-year enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court awarded Alejo presentence custody credits of 282 days. It also imposed a $200 restitution fine and a $200 stayed parole revocation restitution fine. ( 1202.4, subd. (b) & 1202.45.) The trial court dismissed a remaining count of grand theft from a person, strike allegations, and prior prison term allegations charged in the information.
Court have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Alejo's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.