CA Unpub Decisions

Victor Jackson appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of one count of petty theft with a prior prison term for an earlier theft-related conviction. (Pen. Code, 666.)[1] He contends that the prosecution did not offer sufficient evidence to prove that he specifically intended to deprive the victim of his property permanently, and that the record shows sufficient evidence to prove a necessity defense as to the alleged theft. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals an order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO), and recommitting him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. (Pen. Code, 2962 et seq.) Court affirm.

Defendant Amgen, Inc., (Amgen) appeals an order denying its motion to disqualify Allen Graves, the attorney for plaintiff, Edmund Umbrasas. Graves previously worked for a large law firm that represented Amgen. But he proved he was not placed "in a position where he was reasonably likely to have obtained confidential information" relating to the current action, while a member of that firm. (Adams v. Aerojet General Corp. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1341.) The court did not err in denying defendant's motion. Court affirm.

Peter Gergis appeals the judgment (order of commitment) entered following a court trial at which he was determined to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code,[1] 2962 et seq.) He contends the trial court erred in concluding that his controlling offense of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)) involved the use of force or violence as required by section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P). Court agree and, accordingly, reverse.

John Jaramillo appeals a judgment after conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, with findings of a prior serious felony conviction and the service of two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), & 667.5, subd. (b).) Court appointed counsel to represent him in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) Court present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Jaramillo's contentions.

Joseph Stuber appeals an order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO), and recommitting him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. (Pen. Code, 2962 et seq.) Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Ryan Dean King of first degree residential robbery, inflicting corporal injury upon a former cohabitant, false imprisonment by force or violence, and stalking. The trial court subsequently sustained allegations defendant committed each offense while on bail and violated his probation. Defendant was sentenced to eight years eight months in prison. Court vacate the upper term sentences, order a correction of the abstract of judgment, and otherwise affirm.

When Misty W. told defendant Santos Vasquez that their relationship was over, he demanded that she return everything he had given her. An argument ensued. He pushed her repeatedly and grabbed and twisted her hand. She suffered an injury to her hand and finger. When the police were called, defendant fled. A witness in the home corroborated Mistys account.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count (attempting to dissuade a witness Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (a)(2)) as well as case Nos. SCR45320, DT48404, DT57050 and NT109689 with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.

Ricky B. Paugh entered guilty pleas to four counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1]and one count of false imprisonment ( 236/237). He admitted using a deadly weapon in two of the robberies ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), a prior strike ( 667 subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668), a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)(1)) and serving four prior prison terms ( 667.5 subd. (b), 668). The court struck the prior strike and sentenced him to prison for 14 years, four months: the three-year middle term on one robbery conviction enhanced one year for weapon use, three one-year terms for prior prison terms, and five years for the prior serious felony conviction, with consecutive terms of one year on two robbery convictions (one third the middle term), one enhanced four months for weapon use (one third the term). It imposed a concurrent term on the false imprisonment conviction and stayed sentence on one prior prison term enhancement. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) Paugh contends the trial court abused its discretion in not sentencing him according to the indicated sentence. The judgment is affirmed.

Sixteen year old Mario G. entered a negotiated admission to transporting cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a).) The court declared him a ward, ordered him confined in juvenile hall for 60 days with credit for 42 days served, and placed on probation in Yuma, Arizona (his legal residence) until his 19th birthday. Mario appeals. Court affirm.

Defendant Joshua Anthony Cuellar challenges his two year prison sentence for a variety of drug related offenses as an abuse of discretion. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Defendant Robert Rudolph Veillette was convicted by jury of second degree murder with personal use of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a); 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to a total prison term of 16 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in using CALCRIM No. 506 to instruct the jury on justifiable homicide in defending against harm to a person within a home; (2) the trial court erred in using CALCRIM No. 220 to instruct the jury on reasonable doubt; and (3) the trial court erred in using CACRIM No. 224 to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

The court readjudged appellant, Kao S., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code,

602)[1]after it sustained allegations charging Kao with lying to police officers (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(2)) and violating his probation ( 777). On December 12, 2006, the court set Kaos maximum term of confinement at six years six months and committed him to the Probation Youth Facility for one year. On appeal, Kao contends the court erred: 1) in calculating his maximum term of confinement; and 2) by its failure to declare the character of his burglary offense. Court find merit to these contentions and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. In all other respects, Court affirm.