CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal arises from a felony conviction following entry of a guilty plea by defendant Daniel Juarez Rangel to possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), a felony, and to two misdemeanors, i.e., possession of not more than 28.5 ounces of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b)), and driving with a suspended license where the suspension was based upon driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, 14601.2, subd. (a)).[1] The guilty plea was entered after defendant was unsuccessful in moving to suppress the evidence supporting the drug possession charges.
In this appeal, defendant challenges the conviction, contending that the evidence used to secure the conviction of two of the offenses (i.e., the marijuana and cocaine) was the product of an unlawful search of his Mazda following a traffic stop. For the reasons below, Court conclude that the search of defendants car was lawful both as an inventory search of an impounded vehicle, and as a proper search incident to defendants arrest. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Michael Lee appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, count 1 (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (b)), evading an officer causing death, count 3 (Veh. Code, 2800.3), two counts of assault upon a peace officer, counts 4 and 5 (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (c)) and child abuse, count 6 (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a)). He admitted he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d) and 667, subd. (b) - (i)) and within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5. He was sentenced to prison for a total of 27 years and contends there is a lack of substantial evidence to support his convictions for assaulting a peace officer and that his sentence is prohibited under Cunningham v. California. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the judgment.

Craig S. Morris appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to possession of a compound substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). He admitted a prior felony conviction under Penal Code sections 1170.12 subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667 subdivisions (b) through (i) arising out of the following facts. On November 18, 2006, appellant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for failure to yield. Appellant consented to a patdown search and when asked by police officers if he had anything on him that the officer should be concerned with, he stated that he had a syringe in his pocket. The officers found two syringes, a spoon with white residue on it, a surgical rubber strip, a white elastic medical bandage containing two syringes, a bent spoon and a long black shoelace. Appellant admitted using the objects to inject methamphetamine. Methamphetamine and marijuana were found on him during a booking search.
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Amber was born on September 5, 2005. She had medical problems and remained in UCLA hospital after her birth. Nurses and a social worker reported to DCFS that Amber needed special care, that Kathy and James did not visit regularly, that Kathy was afraid of James, who had displayed an explosive temper, and that neither Kathy or James had learned to care for Amber's special medical needs. A Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed on October 31, 2005, and the court ordered Amber detained. Court affirm the order.

Teresa Q. (mother) has filed a writ petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile court's order denying her petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, terminating family reunification services with her son, Estevan Q., and setting the underlying petition for a hearing to consider the termination of her parental rights. Court find substantial evidence supports the court's order and, accordingly, deny the petition.

A jury convicted defendant Julious Ray Whiten of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Finding that defendant had prior convictions, three of which were for serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the three strikes law, and had served prior prison terms, the trial court sentenced him to state prison for a term of 25 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the weapons found during a search of his residence. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant William Kearns appeals the trial courts order prohibiting him (pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6) from contacting or harassing plaintiff T.J. and her daughter C. and ordering him to stay at least 100 yards away from T.J., her car and residence. Kearns contends the order was error because his conduct did not constitute harassment as a matter of law, and the imposition of a restraining order constitutes a disproportionate response to the harm allegedly suffered. Court find neither contention to have merit and affirm the judgment (order).

During a traffic stop on December 10, 2003, an officer found that defendant Andrew Alan Baggett was driving with a suspended license and took him into custody. A consensual search revealed a glass pipe used for smoking controlled substances. Two plastic baggies were found on defendants person. One baggie contained brown-stained cotton balls and the other contained .9 gram of suspected methamphetamine. A search of the car revealed three glass smoking pipes, several containers of bilayered liquids, ephedrine in a powder form, and numerous items associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine. Defendant admitted to the probation officer that he had been manufacturing methamphetamine for his personal use as well as his girlfriends personal use.
The judgment is modified, dismissing the remaining counts of manufacturing methamphetamine; transportation of methamphetamine; driving with a suspended license, a misdemeanor; and possession of paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Stephanie B., mother of the minor A.B., appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in finding the sibling exception ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E)) did not apply. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant The City of San Diego (City) appeals a judgment awarding declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiff Valerie O'Sullivan in her action to enforce the provisions of a 1931 trust grant by the Legislature, as trustor, to City, as trustee, of certain state tide and submerged lands adjacent to La Jolla (now known as the Children's Pool). On appeal, City contends: (1) O'Sullivan's action was barred by the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, 810 et seq.) because she did not present a claim to City before filing her complaint against it; (2) her action was barred by the separation of powers doctrine; (3) the trial court erred by interpreting the terms of the 1931 trust; (4) the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence offered by O'Sullivan; (5) O'Sullivan's action was barred because she did not name an indispensable party as a defendant; and (6) the trial court erred by awarding O'Sullivan attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Because Court conclude City has not carried its burden on appeal to show the trial court prejudicially erred, Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted David Charles Matlock (Matlock) of second degree murder (Penal Code,[1] 187) and found true that he personally used and discharged a firearm to cause death. ( 12022.53, subd. (d); 12022.5, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced Matlock to 40 years to life as follows: 15 years to life on the murder conviction and 25 years to life on the section 12022.53, subd. (d) enhancement; it imposed and stayed a 4 year sentence on the 12022.5, subd. (a)(1) enhancement pursuant to section 654. Matlock contends the trial court erroneously: (1) instructed the jury regarding imperfect self defense; (2) excluded impeachment evidence indicating a witness had used narcotics one week before the trial; and (3) stayed the 12022.5, subd. (a)(1) enhancement instead of striking it. Court affirm.

Antonio Tony Lozano was convicted of second degree murder arising from the death of Richard Johnson and other related offenses arising from an assault on Robert Pope. Various allegations were found true, including that Lozano discharged a firearm that caused great bodily injury or death within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d). Lozano was sentenced to a prison term of 42 years and 4 months to life. He appeals, arguing the crime of second degree felony murder does not exist, firing at an unoccupied vehicle is not an inherently dangerous felony and cannot support a finding of second degree felony murder and his conviction for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle must be reversed because it is necessarily included in his conviction for discharging a firearm from a vehicle at another person.

T.G., a minor, admitted an allegation of soliciting prostitution, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 647, subd. (b)), and after the trial, the juvenile court found that she had committed robbery (Pen. Code, 211). The court adjudged her a ward, placed her with her grandmother under home supervision and stayed a commitment to the Breaking Cycles program. After T.G. filed a notice of appeal, the court found that she had successfully completed probation and terminated jurisdiction. Court affirm.

A jury convicted Oscar Jimenez of numerous offenses, including transportation of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a), count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a), count 2), participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a),[1]count 3), and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 5).[2] The jury also found true that Jimenez committed counts 1, 2 and 5 for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b). Jimenez contends the evidence was insufficient to support the true finding he committed counts 1, 2 and 5 for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and was insufficient to support his convictions of counts 1, 2 and 3. He also contends the court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence of prior acts under Evidence Code section 352.
The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded for resentencing.