CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Deborah Ann Perna appeals from her conviction for first-degree murder with special circumstances. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against her, contending her conviction was based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. She further contends the court erroneously instructed the jury on the felony murder special circumstance and witness credibility.
Court disagree. The accomplices testimony was corroborated by physical evidence tying defendant to the actual killers and defendants statements indicating consciousness of guilt. The court properly instructed the jury on the felony murder special circumstance, omitting only an unwarranted clarification from the standard form instruction. The court also properly instructed the jury on witness credibility. The challenged form instruction does not lower the prosecutions burden of proof. Court affirm.

Defendant Gerardo Lopez challenges his conviction for first degree murder with special circumstances. He contends insufficient evidence showed he committed the murder during the commission of a kidnapping or attempted robbery. Thus he asserts the evidence is insufficient to support the first degree murder conviction. He also asserts the evidence was insufficient to support any of the additional elements of the special circumstances finding. Defendant further contends the court erred by failing to instruct the jury on false imprisonment, a lesser included offense to kidnapping. Finally, he claims the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by stating a single vote of not guilty would lead to an acquittal. Court reject defendants contentions, and affirm.

Mateo C. appeals from the order made at the six month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.21) concerning his children. At the hearing, the juvenile court returned the children to their mother under a plan of family maintenance, transferred the dependency cases to Alameda County where the mother resides, ordered no visitation for Mateo until a psychological evaluation of him was completed, and issued a restraining order prohibiting Mateo from contacting the mother or the children, except through their social workers. On appeal, Mateo contends: (1) he was denied reasonable services; (2) the children should have been placed in his custody; (3) transferring the dependency cases to Alameda County was improper; and (4) the visitation restrictions and restraining order were improper. Court find no error and affirm the order.

Kristi F. and Philip R. each petition for a writ of mandate to compel the juvenile court to a vacate a 12 month review order. Kristi is the mother of Andrew F. and Hunter F., and Philip is the father of Andrew. Kristi argues she was denied due process when the court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues of relative placement and the appropriateness of the current placement. Philip argues there is insufficient evidence to support findings that it would be detrimental to place Andrew with him, and that Philip was offered reasonable services. Counsel for the minors argues the petitions should be denied. Court agree with the minors and deny the petitions.

Appellant Frank S. Rodriguez, Jr. (Rodriguez) appeals from his conviction of stalking, indecent exposure, annoying or molesting a child, and receiving stolen property. He argues that: (1) the police search of his vehicle was unlawful, (2) the court erred in denying his motion to sever the stolen property charge, and (3) the court erred in granting his motion to represent himself because it denied him his right to a fair trial. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) He contends the trial court abused its discretion and denied him due process in sentencing him to the middle term of imprisonment. Court affirm.

After denial of defendants motion to suppress evidence, he was convicted following a jury trial of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)), and driving without a license (Veh. Code, 12500, subd. (a)). The trial court found that defendant suffered a prior drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a)), and served six prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of nine years. In this appeal he renews his challenge to his detention and the warrantless search and seizure of evidence. Court conclude that detention and search of defendant and his vehicle were lawful, and affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

This case is one of several remanded to us by the United States Supreme Court after the decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), which has significant effects on Californias criminal sentencing scheme. As explained below, Court vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing.

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), which has significant effects on Californias criminal sentencing scheme. As explained below, Court vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing.

Defendant and appellant Ronald Brooks was convicted of two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 212.5) and one count of burglary ( 460). The jury also found true the allegation that Brooks used a gun in the commission of these crimes. ( 12022.53, subd. (b)).
On appeal, Brooks argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a stop of the van he was riding in after the robbery; (2) his counsel was ineffective because he failed to move to exclude identification evidence; (3) the trial court erred in admitting extrajudicial statements incriminating him and, in one case, statements made by a witness at a hearing when neither he nor counsel were present; (4) the People committed error during closing argument discussions of the burden of proof; and (5) the judgment must be reversed because of Griffin error. None of these arguments has merit and Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs John G. Wang and Marcia Y. Wang appeal from an order enjoining them from prosecuting claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (ML) and its agents, following the entry of a settlement agreement with Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation (MLCC). Court perceive no error and affirm.

Wayman F. Thompson was a security guard employed by Leedom Security Service, Inc. (Leedom). Leedom assigned Thompson to work at a condominium complex managed by the Oceanaire Homeowners Association (Oceanaire). Leedom terminated Thompson, who then sued Leedom, Oceanaire, and individuals associated with both entities for racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful discharge. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Oceanaire, its president, and one of its employees on the ground that Oceanaire was not Thompsons employer. Court affirm.

Plaintiff filed suit against the Santa Rosa City School District (the district) and various of its officials, including Brian Tolson (collectively, the district defendants), and two attorneys who represented Le Master in a previous action against the district, alleging that the district defendants had failed to accommodate his learning disability and that his attorneys had not adequately represented him. The trial court sustained a demurrer to his first amended complaint with leave to amend. After expiration of the statutory time to amend, the district defendants wrote the trial court, without copying Le Master, requesting that the case be dismissed and the court complied. Le Masters subsequent motion to set aside the judgment was denied. Because defendants were required to give Le Master some notice of the request for dismissal, the trial court erred in granting that request and the judgment of dismissal must be reversed.
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.