500 matching results for "ravimor":
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury found Ismael Parra and Michael Cardenas guilty of second degree murder (count 1; Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)[1]), gang-related battery (count 2; §§ 242, 186.22, subd. (d)) and street terrorism (count 3; § 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the special allegation that the murder was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal street gang as to Cardenas only. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).)
The trial court sentenced Parra and Cardenas to 15 years to life on count 1. The court imposed a three year concurrent term for each on count 2. The court stayed punishment on count 3 and on Cardenas’s gang enhancement pursuant to section 654. The court ordered victim restitution in the amount of $10,457.82. The abstract of judgment is corrected to make restitution joint and several as to Parra and Cardenas. In all other respects, we affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
D.G. (Father) appeals from orders denying his request for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition,[1] setting the matter for a section 366.26 hearing, terminating his parental rights, and ordering adoption for Q.G. Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred by denying his section 388 petition without a hearing. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Darryl Lee Goldstein appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of no contest, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress. His appeal is authorized by Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m).[1]
On July 25 and August 10, 2016, respectively, appellant filed a “Request for Court’s Assistance (Law Library Pro Per Use)” and a request to represent himself in propria persona. Those requests were denied on October 7, 2016. Appellant’s court appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has advised appellant that he may personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to the court’s attention, but appellant has filed no such brief. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant A.A. (Father) is the father of two minor children who are the subjects of the underlying dependency petition. The San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Agency) filed the proceeding after his six-year-old daughter (Daughter) reported he had hit her with a belt, causing bruises on her calf and thigh. Father appeals from the jurisdictional finding, claiming no substantial evidence supports the findings of serious physical abuse and abuse of a sibling under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivision (a). He also challenges the dispositional order removing the children from his physical custody, claiming the finding of “substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being” is also not supported by substantial evidence. Father further claims the court abused its discretion in terminating the dependency proceeding and placing the minors with their mother (Mother).[2] We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Javon Strong appeals a judgment convicting him of first degree murder and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life in prison. He contends his constitutional rights were violated by the admission at trial of his girlfriend’s involuntary statements to the police. We find no error and thus shall affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted Lazaris Italo Fuller of two crimes against Jane Doe 1: kidnapping for purposes of rape (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)) and assault with intent to commit rape (id., § 220). Fuller appeals from the judgement of conviction, arguing (1) the trial court erred in overruling objections to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges of African-American jurors; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for aggravated kidnapping; (3) evidence of uncharged conduct was erroneously admitted; (4) the trial court made various instructional errors; and (5) the trial court’s Pitchess[1] proceedings and records should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
During a traffic stop, police found a quantity of marijuana on the backseat of defendant Duc Vinh Do’s car. A jury convicted defendant of one felony count of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a))[1] and one misdemeanor count of possessing more than 28.5 grams (one ounce) of marijuana (§ 11357, subd. (c)) as a lesser-included offense of possession of marijuana for sale. The jury acquitted defendant of possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359; a felony) but rejected his defense based on the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (§ 11362.5) (CUA).
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiff and appellant Rosa Simpson sued defendant and respondent Jiachang Zhang for dental malpractice, alleging his negligence in performing a dental implant procedure permanently damaged a nerve in her jaw. Zhang moved for summary judgment based on the one-year limitations period that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 establishes for all professional negligence claims against healthcare providers.[1] The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment against Simpson. We affirm.
Section 340.5’s one-year limitations period starts when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered both her injury and that someone’s wrongdoing likely caused it. Simpson testified she felt an electric shock as Zhang drilled the socket for her implant, and she immediately thought he had done something wrong. The next day Simpson returned to Zhang’s office to complain about the pain. After examining Simpson and taking an x-ray, Zhang apologized to Simpson, admitting the |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiffs Gabrielle A. and Nicholas G. (the parents) and John A. and Gregory A. (the children) appeal from a judgment following the trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment by the County of Orange (the County) and social workers Laura McLuckey, Veronica Zuniga, Sandra Parrish-Rehoreg, Lauri Luchonok, Gale Westbrook, Elvia Villa, and Brian Satterfield.
Plaintiffs’ claims relate to the detention of John and Gregory for six months, specifically, the two months they were detained in Orange County before the case was transferred to Los Angeles. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the parents’ knowing and voluntary pleas of no contest to the jurisdictional allegations during dependency proceedings defeats their claims, and the social workers are entitled to immunity. Finally, even if we were to disregard the no contest pleas and the relevant immunity doctrines, defendants correctly argue they met their burden to establish they were |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Moises Najera was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Abin Delgado.[1] A jury acquitted him of first degree murder, but returned a guilty verdict of second degree murder with a finding he used a deadly weapon in committing that offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 16 years to life.
On appeal, defendant claims the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser crime of attempted murder and by giving an inapplicable instruction on mutual combat. Finding these contentions lack merit, we affirm the judgment. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Francisco Xavier Carbajal, Jr.,[1] was charged with assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1) [count 1]),[2] willful infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a) [count 2]), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1) [count 3]). In connection with counts 1 and 2, the information alleged he personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).
Defendant pled guilty to count 2. Later, the jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of attempted rape on count 1, found him guilty as charged on count 3, and found the special allegations true. Defendant received an aggregate sentence of eight years eight months: a principal term of four years on count 1 plus four years for infliction of great bodily injury; and a consecutive subordinate term of eight months on count 3. Execution of punishment on count 2 was stayed pursuant to section 654. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Dustin Leon Miller (defendant) received an aggregate sentence of 28 years eight months for convictions in five different criminal cases. He makes two contentions on appeal. First, pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), the trial court should have dismissed his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Second, in the fifth and most recent case, the court did not adequately advise him of the penal consequences of admitting the abovementioned prior. For the reasons set forth below, we reject these contentions.
The Attorney General asks us to remand the case for the limited purpose of amending the information to allege a prior serious conviction under Penal Code[1] section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and affording defendant the opportunity to either admit or contest the allegation. We reject the request to remand and, instead, strike the enhancement. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Robert Lee Griffin was convicted by jury of two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of sexual penetration of a child age 10 or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)). Griffin admitted a prior conviction and stipulated to a prior prison term allegation (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(I), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5., subd. (b)). Griffin was sentenced to a total aggregate term of 131 years to life.
On appeal, Griffin contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion and violated due process in admitting evidence of a prior 2006 misdemeanor sex crime and of data and images found on his computer; (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction on the “fresh complaint” doctrine; (3) that CALCRIM No. 1193 was an incorrect statement of law; and (4) that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting evidence regarding a prior complaint of sexual molestation by one of the |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant and appellant J.B. (Minor) appeals the denial of his request to seal his court and school records pursuant to former Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, subdivision (e).[1] In 2010 and 2011, Minor had three petitions filed against him pursuant to section 602 for three separate offenses. The third petition involved an incident on school grounds and was dismissed pursuant to a negotiated disposition in 2011. He successfully completed probation for the first two petitions and the juvenile court agreed to dismiss and seal the records for those two petitions pursuant to section 786. However, the juvenile court denied his request to seal education records for the third petition on the grounds that Minor had failed to establish he successfully completed probation on that petition, so it was not in a position to exercise its discretion for the dismissed petition.
Minor claims that the third petition, which was not adjudicated, was subject to section 786, subdi |