CA Unpub Decisions

Following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5), appellant Sabrina Bustamante pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378; count II) and possession of brass knuckles (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(1); count III). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years probation, one of the terms of which was that she serve one year in county jail. On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in denying her suppression motion. Court affirm.

Defendant Bobby Dean Ball, Jr., was convicted of first degree burglary. He appealed from his conviction and sentence, and Court affirmed.

Enrique R. raises for the first time on appeal a challenge to a probation condition requiring him to maintain a residence approved by his probation officer and to notify the officer of any change of residence. As we shall explain, we have concluded that Enrique, by failing to object in the juvenile court to the conditions imposition, has forfeited his right to challenge on appeal the conditions reasonableness. He retains, however, his right to contest on appeal the conditions facial constitutionality,but on that issue, Court have determined his claim lacks merit. Court have also decided the condition should be modified to specify that Enriques mother may move with Enrique to another home without the probation officers approval. With that modification Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Corbett Le Grand was charged by information with one count of sexual penetration of a minor (Pen. Code, 289, subd. (h)) and one count of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)).[1] The information alleged a prior sex offense ( 667.51, subd. (a), 667.6, subd. (a)) and strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)) as to each count based on defendants 2001 conviction for violation of section 288, subdivision (a), and as to count two also alleged aggravated circumstances based on the prior conviction ( 667.61, subds. (a), (d)). The jury found defendant guilty as charged and found the special allegations true. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 25 years to life. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the sole ground that counsel was not reasonably diligent in discovering new evidence.
In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus defendant further argues that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel due to counsels failure to investigate and present an alibi defense. We previously ordered the writ to be considered with the appeal. Court have disposed of the habeas petition by separate order.

Defendant Michael Shum was convicted after jury trial of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378).[1] He admitted having three prior possession-for-sale convictions ( 11370.2, subd. (c)), and having served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 11 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; (2) the court prejudicially erred by failing to enforce defense counsels offered stipulation; (3) the court prejudicially erred while instructing the jury on the corpus delicti rule; (4) counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to gang evidence and by failing to request that the evidence be stricken; (5) counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to evidence of defendants misdemeanor conviction for spousal battery; and (6) there was prejudicial cumulative error. Court disagree with these contentions and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

In this case, Court review the courts order modifying defendant Ernesto Castillos sentence after revocation of probation. Court modify the abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the courts oral sentence pronouncement and order a reduction in the restitution fines and parole revocation restitution fines.

Defendant Anthony Curtis Martin was charged by information with inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that defendant had served two prior prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) On May 26, 2005, defendant appeared with counsel, entered a no contest plea to the new offense, and admitted the prior prison term allegations, with the understanding that his maximum possible sentence was six years. At the same hearing he admitted violating his probation in an unrelated drug case.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal on January 4, 2007, after this court granted his motion for relief from default due to the failure to timely file a notice of appeal. Court appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and facts but raises no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That time has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant, Charles Shihli Wang, was found guilty of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, a violation of Penal Code section 273.5, after a court trial. The court placed defendant on probation for three years on various terms and conditions including (1) submission of his person, residence, vehicle and property under his control to warrantless search at any time by a peace officer, and (2) payment of a probation supervision fee of not more than $64 per month. On appeal, he contends these two conditions are invalid and should be stricken. Court modify the judgment with respect to the probation supervision fee and, as modified, affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Michael Peter Espinoza pleaded no contest to the felony of threatening to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 422) and to the misdemeanor of brandishing a knife (id., 417, subd. (a)(1)). A felony complaint had charged him with committing misdemeanor criminal threats and also with assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (id., 245, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to two years in prison.
Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. Court notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. Defendant has filed a supplemental letter brief in which he raises a number of claims. We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court affirm the judgment.

Respondents petition for rehearing is granted and the opinion filed on July 18, 2007, is vacated and replaced by this opinion. This case was remanded to us by the United States Supreme Court after its decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). In light of our Supreme Courts recent decision in People v. Black (July 19, 2007, S126182) Cal.4th [2007 WL 2050875, 2007 Cal. Lexis 7604] (Black II), Court now affirm the judgment.

Respondents petition for rehearing is granted and the opinion filed on July 18, 2007, is vacated and replaced by this opinion. This case was remanded to us by the United States Supreme Court after its decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). In light of our Supreme Courts recent decision in People v. Black (July 19, 2007, S126182) Cal.4th [2007 WL 2050875, 2007 Cal. Lexis 7604] (Black II), Court now affirm the judgment.

Respondents petition for rehearing is granted and the opinion filed on July 13, 2007, is vacated and replaced by this opinion. This case is one of several remanded to us by the United States Supreme Court due to their decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). In light of our Supreme Courts recent decision in People v. Black (July 19, 2007, S126182) Cal.4th (Black II), Court now affirm the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of driving on a suspended license, sale of narcotics, and failure to appear. The jury also found to be true enhancement allegations that defendant was on bail at the time he committed the latter two offenses. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to strike one of these enhancements after the offense for which he was on bail was dismissed and in failing to give a unanimity instruction with respect to a second enhancement allegation. Court affirm.

Robert Jeffery Jones appeals a judgment of the Napa County Superior Court entered after a jury convicted him of felony vandalism. He claims the conviction must be reversed for the following reasons: (1) the trial court erred in concluding defense counsel committed a discovery violation; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury with CALJIC 2.28 and limiting the scope of defense experts testimony; (3) the trial court violated his constitutional right to compulsory process by limiting the scope of defense experts testimony; and (4) defense counsels actions amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Court reject appellants claims and affirm his conviction.