CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant James Conrad Stull, convicted of multiple offenses arising out of his efforts to smuggle drugs into Mule Creek State Prison, argues that the evidence was insufficient to support one of the convictions and the court should have excluded incriminating evidence that was not disclosed to the defense prior to trial. Court modify the judgment by striking two unauthorized fines, and otherwise affirm.

Defendant Luis Alberto Dominguez entered a negotiated plea to a reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter and attempted first degree robbery in concert and admitted certain enhancements in exchange for dismissal of other charges and enhancements and a stipulated state prison sentence of 26 years. His subsequent motion to withdraw his plea was denied and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 26 years. On appeal, defendant contends that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because the structure of his sentence is unauthorized and no lawful way exists for the court to arrive at 26 years. While we conclude he is estopped to challenge the structure of his sentence, Court modify the judgment insofar as the trial court chose the wrong number of years to fulfill the parties agreement of a concurrent midterm sentence for attempted first degree robbery in concert.

Defendant Maurice Rogers was sentenced to three years in state prison after having been found in violation of the conditions of his probation. On appeal, he contends: (1) the trial court erred in finding him in violation of his probation for failure to enroll in a batterers treatment program, (2) the trial courts failure to hold a competency hearing constituted a denial of due process and requires reversal, (3) his upper-term sentence violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (4) the trial court erroneously imposed a second restitution fine at sentencing. Court agree only with defendants last contention and modify the judgment accordingly.

A group of neighbors challenged approval by the City of Davis (the City) of a 38-bed residential community for college students to be located on fraternity row, a four-lane thoroughfare that borders a university. The group claimed the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act by reviewing the project by means of a mitigated negative declaration instead of an environmental impact report. Court conclude there was no substantial evidence on which a fair argument could be made showing this infill project would create significant adverse impacts to the physical environment. Court affirm the trial courts denial of the groups petition for writ of mandate.

This case involves a dispute between two brothers over an alleged breach of contract for the sale of a house. The trial court concluded that no contract existed because the parties never reached agreement on the terms of the sale, and it therefore granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Louis and Donna Hampton. Plaintiffs Gregory and Patricia Hampton appeal from the ensuing judgment. Court affirm.

In 2001, defendant Amos Junior Scott stood convicted of a federal drug offense, and based in part on his prior convictions in California, was sentenced to life in federal prison. He filed a petition for writ of errorcoram nobis in the trial court to invalidate one of his state prison sentences in the hopes of changing his federal sentence.

On appeal, defendant contends (1) he established a prima facie case for coram nobis relief, because the prosecutor in the drug case breached his promise and the plea bargain by revoking his probation in the assault case, and (2) his trial counsel in the drug case rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to revocation of probation in the assault case. According to defendant, invalidation of the prison sentence in either the assault case or the drug case would furnish grounds to challenge his federal status as a career offender and his imprisonment for life. Court affirm the judgment.

The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding, after an in camera review, that there were no documents to be discovered to defendant pursuant to his motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Having undertaken an independent review of the sealed records, Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment.

John H., a minor, appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602 & 725, subd. (b))[1]and finding that he committed felony battery (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (d)). The minor raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that the victim suffered serious bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (f)(4). Second, the minor contends that the terms of the courts wardship order are inconsistent and therefore invalid. Court affirm the order.

The trial court accepted the plea agreement and granted defendants request to be released on his own recognizance. When defendant failed to appear at the appointed time for sentencing, the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. He was arrested in Michigan and extradited to California. As Court explain, the first contention is frivolous because it indisputably has no merit; any reasonable attorney familiar with the record and the law would not have raised the contention because it ignores language of the plea agreement that completely undermines the claim of error. Indeed, not only does the contention lack merit, it is not cognizable on appeal. The second claim the trial court erred in imposing the upper term also fails for reasons that follow. Thus, Court dismiss the appeal in part and affirm the judgment.

Appellant, the mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 360, subd. (d), 395.) Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction or removal of the minor. Disagreeing, Court affirm.

In case No. 06F05506, defendant Tony Curtis Morgan pled no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1]and petty theft with a prior ( 666) and admitted a prior strike allegation. ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) In exchange for the plea, the People agreed defendant would be sentenced to the low term of 16 months, doubled because of the prior strike admission. It was also agreed defendant could file a Romero[2]motion to strike the strike allegation. In case No. 06F03275, defendant pled no contest to unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property ( 496d, subd. (a)) and resisting a peace officer ( 148, subd. (a)). In exchange for this plea, the charges were reduced to misdemeanor offenses.
The judgment is modified to provide for the mandatory $20 court security fee. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Danny Castro appeals from his conviction of first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a)) and intentionally discharging a firearm causing death ( 12022.53, subd. (d)). He contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of first degree murder; and (2) the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of shotgun shells and controlled substances found in defendants apartment and admitting testimony about defendants former possession of guns that were unrelated to the current crime. Court find that any error was harmless, and Court affirm.

Following a court trial, judgment was entered granting dissolution of the marriage between Marshall Bernie (Husband) and Colleen Bernie (Wife). Along with dissolving the marriage, the trial court determined that the family residence at 64896 Boros Court, Desert Hot Springs, California, was separate, nonmarital property belonging to Husband. In support of its determination, the court concluded that Husband did not make a premarital, oral agreement to give Wife the family residence in contemplation of marriage. Wife appeals, claiming the trial court erred in: (1) not allowing her cross-examination on the grounds alleged for the dissolution of marriage; (2) not admitting certain evidence regarding a premarital promise between the parties; and (3) awarding the family residence to Husband without sufficient evidence. Having found no error, Court affirm the entirety of the trial courts rulings.

Plaintiffs[1]contend the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to disqualify defendants counsel because (1) defendants counsel improperly communicated with adverse parties without consent of plaintiffs counsel; (2) the trial court erroneously based its decision on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to show prejudice; and (3) the trial court considered facts and evidence that were not properly before the court. We find no abuse of discretion, and we affirm. In addition, because the face of the record suggests misconduct on the part of counsel, Court refer the matter to the State Bar of California for further investigation and, if appropriate, imposition of sanctions.