CA Unpub Decisions

Appeal from a judgment denying appellant's petition for writ of mandate, which sought to require the County of Los Angeles (county) and its sheriff, to return property taken from plaintiff upon his arrest, or its monetary value. Court disagree on both grounds, and reverse the judgment.

After exhausting his administrative remedies plaintiff brought this action against a hospital and individual members of its judicial review committee. Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from the hospital's revocation of his staff privileges.

Father challenges an order of the Alameda County Juvenile Court, which set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for chuild. court deny Father's petition on the merits.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of assault with deadly weapons and/or with force likely to produce great bodily injury. Defendant's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting this court to make an independent review of the record. court have done so and, despite one conspicuous mistake in the proceedings below, we find no arguable basis for reversal and shall therefore affirm the judgment.

appellant was convicted of petty theft with a prior and sentenced to 32 months in state prison. Appellant's attorney has raised no issues on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has also filed a pro se brief. Court affirm.

Appellant was sentenced to the aggravated term of five years after being found in violation of his conditions of probation on a conviction for robbery. Appellant contends the court erred in imposition of this sentence. Court reject appellant's arguments and affirm, although we modify the judgment with respect to the restitution fine imposed.

Defendant appeals from an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to four years in prison. Defendant's principal contention on appeal is that his due process rights were violated because the People's motion to revoke his probation did not provide him with sufficient written notice of the charges against him. He also contends that he was entitled to a separate written statement of the trial court's reasons for revoking his probation and that the trial court should have released to him the complaining witness's psychiatric records.
Court conclude that the documents attached to the People's motion to revoke provided Anderson with constitutionally adequate notice of the charges against him. Court further conclude that the written reporter's transcript of the trial court's ruling on the motion to revoke satisfies the requirement that Anderson receive a written statement of reasons. Finally, court find no error in the trial court's refusal to release the complaining witness's confidential psychiatric records. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment.

In an accompanying petition for a writ of habeas corpus, defendant repeats these assertions and also claims his constitutional due process rights were violated when the court took his plea rather than suspend all proceedings for an incompetency hearing. Defendant is not entitled to relief on direct appeal or by habeas corpus.

Defendants and cross complainants Cu N. Phan and Khiem T. Tran appeal from a judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff and cross defendant AMC, Inc. dba Star Real Estate (AMC) and cross defendant Don Enright. They contend the trial court erred in determining AMC and Enright were the prevailing parties and awarding them attorney fees. Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Paul C. Estebo appeals from an order that set aside a stipulated judgment in this rescission and quiet title action against Erla Navil Gonzalez and Maria Trinidad. The stipulation, between Estebo and Trinidad, purported to cut off Gonzalezs title. Estebo argues no grounds were shown to set aside the judgment. Court disagree and affirm.

The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends that the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) exception should have been applied and that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial courts finding that the exception was inapplicable. Substantial evidence supports the courts finding. Court affirm.

Devin Maurice Harmon appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on numerous counts of first degree residential burglary and receiving stolen property, and one count of receiving a stolen vehicle. Harmon contends he cannot be convicted of receiving the same property he stole from the burglary victims, and his conviction of receiving a stolen vehicle is not supported by substantial evidence. Court agree his conviction of receiving a stolen vehicle is not supported by substantial evidence and reverse the judgment as to that count only.

Appellant challenges his conviction of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle and giving false information to a police officer on the grounds of instructional and sentencing error. Court conclude the trial court was not required to instruct upon a violation of Penal Code section 499b as a lesser included offense of Vehicle Code section 10851, as taking a motor vehicle is no longer within the scope of Penal Code section 499b. We must remand for resentencing because the trial court imposed an upper term based on facts not found by the jury. Appellants disproportionality claim is moot and was forfeited by his failure to raise it in the trial court.

jury found defendant and appellant Ricky Tommy Aragon (hereafter defendant) guilty as charged of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211) (count 1), assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)) (count 2), and participating in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a)) (count 3). The jury further found true the allegation, in connection with each count, that in the commission of the alleged offense a principal was armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (a)(1)).[1]

The district attorney prosecuted defendant on the theory that he had aided and abetted Alexander Gamez, the actual perpetrator, in the commission of the noted crimes, all of which occurred during a single incident on December 22, 2003, and involved a single victim, Craig Sullivan. At the conclusion of their joint trial, the jury was unable to reach verdicts with respect to Gamez on any of the three charges but found defendant guilty as charged on all three counts.

In this appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on count 3, the criminal street gang charge, and to support the jurys true finding on the related section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) enhancement. In a supplemental brief, defendant asks that we take judicial notice of the subsequent retrial of Alexander Gamez in which the prosecutor dismissed the charges midtrial when the victim, Craig Sullivan, stated that Gamez definitely was not the person who had assaulted and attempted to rob him. Because defendant was prosecuted as an aider and abettor of Gamez, and the charges against Gamez were dismissed, defendant contends that Court must reverse the judgment and dismiss the criminal street gang charge. Defendant also contends that the jury should have been instructed on the need for unanimity because Gamez fired four shots at Sullivan, each of which defendant contends constituted a separate act of assault with a firearm but the prosecutor charged only one crime based on those acts. Moreover, defendant contends that the trial court should have stayed execution of the sentence imposed on defendants attempted robbery conviction because that crime and the crime of assault with a firearm were based on the same criminal act within the meaning of section 654. As his final claim, defendant contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine all factual issues because in imposing the upper term sentence on count 2 and the consecutive sentences on counts 1 and 3 the trial court relied on facts other than those the jury found true at trial.
Court agree with defendants claim under section 654 and in light of Cunningham v. California (Jan. 22, 2007, No. 05-6551) U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] must also agree with defendants challenge to the trial courts imposition of the upper term sentence. Therefore, Court vacate defendants sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings and with directions that in resentencing defendant, the trial court must stay execution of the sentence imposed on count 1. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.