CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant, Jeremiah Markeith Green, appeals from his convictions for two counts of second degree robbery and a finding he was previously convicted of serious felony. (Pen. Code[1], 211, 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant contends: there was no substantial evidence he committed a robbery as charged in count 1; the jury should have been instructed as to grand theft from the person as to count 1; he was entitled to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances utilized to impose the upper term as to count 1; the abstract of judgment must be modified and the parole restitution fine must be reduced. The Attorney General argues that certain fines and penalties should be imposed. Court affirm with modifications.

Defendant Sophie Serrato appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Marlene Jones on Consumer Legal Remedies Act and fraud claims. Court affirm.

Andrea S. (Mother) appeals the October 18, 2006 termination order in the Santa Cruz County juvenile court of her parental rights to Seth E., who was then seven years old. Mother claims two exceptions to his adoption apply and the attorney for Seth and his half sister, then 13 year old Cassandra T., had a conflict of interest making it reversible error for the same attorney to represent both. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Miguel A. Barajas pled no contest to five charges and guilty to one in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC458183 and admitted four enhancements and no contest to the single count of failing to appear while released on bail in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC468475. In exchange for this plea, the trial court agreed to and did sentence defendant to two years in state prison consecutive to his nine year, four month, sentence in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC074263. (An appeal of the latter case is pending before this court in case No. H030602.) This appeal of case Nos. CC458183 and CC468475 ensued.
Court appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. Court notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant did not respond. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner Richard C. (father) seeks writ review of an order denying family reunification services and scheduling a hearing to select and implement an alternative permanent plan for his daughter, Skyler C. Father contends insufficient evidence shows he failed to make reasonable efforts to treat his substance abuse and violence problems, which had led to the prior removal of Skylers older brother. He further contends reunification services would be in Skylers best interests. The record shows otherwise. Court deny the petition.

A surviving spouse petitions this court for a writ of review (Lab. Code, 5950; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.494) alleging the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) failed to adopt a statutory presumption of compensability that a blood borne infectious disease caused the death of her police officer husband. Given the lack of supportive medical evidence that her husband was in fact infected with such a disease, Court must agree with the WCAB that the presumption does not apply.

Amanda R. appeals from orders terminating her paren tal rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her two sons, Tyler R. and Austin R. Appellant contends that the court should have found that termination would be detrimental to Tyler R. and Austin R. based on their parent/child relationship. On review, Court affirm.

In superior court case number SCS191672, Lanika A. Phillips was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), with personal use of a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and personal infliction of great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). In superior court case number SCD195320, Phillips was charged with murder ( 187, subd. (a)), with personal use of a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), while on felony probation ( 1203, subd. (k)), three serious felony prior convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)), and three strikes ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Court dismiss the appeal as moot.

A jury convicted Omar A. Graham of one count of burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and two counts of uttering a false check ( 470, subd. (d)). The trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Graham on three years' probation on the condition, among others, that he serve 270 days in jail.
Graham appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence he had the requisite knowledge and intent to sustain his convictions on the two-check forgery counts.

This is an appeal by Benjamin Holbrook in two criminal cases. In the first case (SCD 187211), he contends the court did not orally pronounce sentence, and the abstract of judgment and minutes reflect a sentence encompassing a strike that was previously dismissed. The People respond that the court orally pronounced a sentence that did not include the strike, but concede that the abstract of judgment and the minute order must be corrected to delete references to the strike. We agree with the People and accordingly remand the case to the sentencing court so that it may make those corrections. In the second case (SCD 195927), Holbrook contends the judgment must be reversed because the record does not show that he personally waived his right to a jury trial. The People properly concede he is correct, and Court reverse the judgment.

The trial court terminated probation and sentenced defendant Edward Dominic Zuniga to state prison for the upper term of three years after he admitted his second violation on his 2005 grant of probation for possession of a short-barreled shotgun. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the courts imposition of the upper term without a jury finding of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely) and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856; 166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham), (2) the court erred in failing to state the reasons for imposing the upper term, (3) any failure to object at sentencing to the courts failure to state such reasons was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) trial counsels failure to argue for the low or middle term constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Christopher Andrews (defendant) forced a female school bus driver at gunpoint to drive him in her unoccupied bus from Gardena to Coalinga. The bus driver managed to escape at a rest stop where the police were called. The police arrived, located defendant, and arrested him. The jury convicted defendant of, inter alia, kidnapping and carjacking.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike his prior felony conviction for carjacking. Court hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and therefore affirm the judgment.

Appellant Jonathan N. appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that Jonathan N. committed two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)). Jonathan N. was ordered into the camp community placement program for a period of three months. His maximum period of confinement was fixed at five years.
This court has conducted an independent review of the record. There are no arguable appellate issues. The judgment is therefore affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)

Gerardo Luna appeals from a judgment entered following his no contest plea to assault with a firearm, count 2 (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)), his admission that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C), that during the commission of the offense he personally used a handgun within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) and personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a).[1] He was sentenced to prison for a total of 18 years, consisting of the upper term of four years for the base term, plus a consecutive middle term of four years for the gun use enhancement, plus a consecutive term of 10 years for the gang enhancement. For purposes of sentencing, the great bodily injury enhancement was stricken. Appellants notice of appeal states his appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea and that his appeal challenges the validity of the plea or admission. He requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. The judgment is affirmed.