CA Unpub Decisions

A modification order.

Appellant appeals from the conviction entered after his guilty plea and challenges the judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5, asserting that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a fine under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5. Respondent concedes the issue; and Court modify, but otherwise affirm, the judgment.

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a term of two years and eight months following a finding that he violated probation by possessing ammunition. He claims that the evidence does not prove his possession of the ammunition, and the court erred by imposing a state prison term rather than reinstating his probation. Court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking defendants probation or imposing a state prison term, and therefore affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Shank/Balfour Beatty (SBB) was awarded contracts by defendant and respondent Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) for the construction of two tunnels underneath the San Bernardino mountains for the purposes of a large water transmission line. Ameron International (Ameron) was SBBs subcontractor for the construction of the reinforced concrete cylindrical pipe to be placed within the tunnels to carry the water.
Court conclude: (1) the contracts were terminated; (2) SBB is barred from arguing the termination constituted a breach; and (3) the contract clause limiting the compensation for overhead during a period of suspension is enforceable. Court therefore affirm the judgment. As SBB failed to appeal the costs award, Court do not consider its propriety.

Defendant and appellant Steven Sanders appeals from a judgment after a jury trial in which he was convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury on a former cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant admitted one prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a); one prior serious felony conviction (strike) within the meaning of Penal Code section 1170.12; and two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct a proper inquiry into his allegations of his counsels ineffective representation. Court conclude the trial court did not err. Defendant also contends the sentencing court erred in imposing the upper term based on factors not found true by the jury. Court remand for resentencing.

Defendant and appellant Richard Lathan appeals from a judgment after a jury trial in which he was convicted of three counts of obstructing or resisting executive officers in the performance of their duties. He contends the prosecutor committed misconduct in argument to the jury, and that the trial court erred in failing to reduce his wobbler convictions to misdemeanors. Finding no cognizable error, Court affirm.

Defendants Ismael Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and Jaime Valderama (Valderama) appeal from the judgments entered after a jury trial in which they were convicted of forcible rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2)) and forcible rape while acting in concert (Pen. Code, 264.1). Each defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of seven years in state prison. Valderama contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment, as the victims testimony was not reasonable and credible and of such solid value that a reasonable trier of fact could properly rely on such evidence in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rodriquez contends that (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the trial court unduly limited his cross-examination of three prosecution witnesses, (2) by improperly restricting his own trial testimony, the trial court denied him his due process right to present a complete defense, and (3) the cumulative effect of the trial courts improper evidentiary rulings denied him due process and a fair trial. Court conclude that the contentions lack merit and affirm the judgments.

Appellant, Robin F. (Robin), is the de facto parent and maternal great aunt of Noah B. (Noah), born in November 2000, and Emily B. (Emily), born in August 2003. Robin appeals from the courts termination of jurisdiction over Noah pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 for failure to give notice to her and for an alleged improper delegation of judicial authority to determine visitation rights between Robin and Emily. For the reasons hereafter stated, Court affirm.

In 1980, pursuant to a plea bargain, Reggie Leon Reel pled no contest to one count of transportation or sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)). He was granted probation. In 2006, Reel moved to set aside the plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5, on the ground that at the time of his plea the trial court failed to advise him it could result in the denial of naturalization. The trial court denied the motion. Court affirm.

Francisco P. appeals from the order committing him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (CDC) for a term of 10 years 4 months based upon sustained petitions under Welfare & Institutions Code section 602 for misdemeanor unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), felony criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422), vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(2 )(A)) and felony assault with a deadly weapon for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1) & 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Court affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Ameer Faquir brought a race discrimination and retaliation action against his employer, the City of Los Angeles (City) and his supervisors (collectively defendants). The gravamen of his complaint is that he was denied two promotions and transferred to an unfavorable position based on his race and his pursuit, and support of, other race discrimination lawsuits against the City. As the evidence is undisputed that Faquir was not qualified for the two promotions he was denied, and voluntarily accepted the transfer, Court affirm the summary judgment in favor of defendants.

Dwayne Glover appeals from the judgment (order of commitment) entered after a jury found that he was a mentally disordered offender. (MDO; Pen. Code, 2962 et seq.) The trial court committed appellant to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a condition of his parole. ( 2966, subd. (b).) Court appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. The judgment (order of commitment) is affirmed.

Mark Anthony Berryman appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to two counts of forgery and one count of second degree commercial burglary. (Pen. Code, 476, 470, subd. (d), 459.)[1] Appellant admitted that he had suffered one prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds .(a)-(d)) and served a prison term for three prior felony convictions ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Court affirm.

Defendant Robert Lee Cole was convicted by a jury of 12 counts of lewd conduct with a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a),[1]sodomy of a child ( 269, subd. (a)(3)), rape of a child ( 269, subd. (a)(1)), and a lewd act upon a child by force or fear ( 288, subd. (b)(1)), crimes that were perpetrated on two stepdaughters over a five year period. The jury also rendered special Blakely findings that defendant inflicted great bodily injury, abused a position of trust and confidence and evinced cruelty, callousness and viciousness in committing the offenses.
After the court found that defendant had two prior strike felonies ( 1170.12) and one prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)), he was sentenced to state prison for 630 years to life, plus 14 years. On appeal, defendant raises a host of instructional, evidentiary and sentencing errors by the trial court. With the exception of minor sentence modifications, Court affirm the judgment.