500 matching results for "ravimor":
From CA Unpub Decisions
In Los Angeles Superior Court case No. GA095071, the jury convicted defendant Angel Octavion Garcia of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §187, subd. (a)) during which he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (knife; § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). He was sentenced to prison to 15 years to life for murder, plus the one year use enhancement.
In Los Angeles Superior Court case No. GA095189, an unrelated case, defendant pled guilty to making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); count 2) and the remaining counts (1, 3-5) were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. He was sentenced to prison to the two-year middle term, which sentence was concurrent with the GA095071 sentence. He filed a notice of appeal from the judgment in GA095071. This court granted his motion to amend the notice to include the judgment in GA095189. These appeals are consolidated for argument and disposition. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Gene Autry McCaleb appeals from the judgment following a trial at which the jury convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2)[1] during which he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court denied probation and sentenced him to prison to a six-year term consisting of the three-year middle term, plus a three-year great bodily injury enhancement.
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying him probation, because he is eligible due to unusual circumstances and the court failed to consider those circumstances and find thereby the presumption of probation ineligibility had been overcome. We affirm the judgment. There was no abuse of discretion. A presumption against the grant of probation arises if the defendant attempted to use or used a deadly weapon or he willfully inflicted great bodily injury on another. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Father Angel M. (father) challenges a jurisdiction order relating to his daughter J.A. Father shared a home with family members involved with drugs, firearms, and violence, and he brought family members to visit J.A. The juvenile court found jurisdiction for failure to protect under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).[1] On appeal, father argues there was no evidence to support jurisdiction, because J.A. did not visit his home. However, one witness said J.A. had visited father’s home, paternal family members visited J.A., and the paternal family showed some interest in seeking partial custody of J.A. We therefore affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Luis Alejandro Perdomo Callejas was charged by information with one count of transporting or offering to sell methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 1), and one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378; count 2). He was convicted by jury of both counts, and was sentenced to three years probation on the condition that he serve 90 days in jail. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to take judicial notice of his co-arrestee’s no contest plea to charges arising from the arrest. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A modification decision.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
On September 1, 2014, defendant David Wayne Taylor (Taylor) shot his adult son, Michael Taylor (Michael). At trial, Taylor argued he acted in self-defense. A jury convicted Taylor of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b))[1] and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). He appeals, arguing the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Michael’s arrest for misdemeanor spousal battery and denying a motion for mistrial. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Peter Sean Cole appeals following his guilty plea to a felony failure to appear while released on his own recognizance in violation of Penal Code section 1320, subdivision (b).[1] His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion addressed to all four of causes of action in plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court granted it, and dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Jason Littlefield contends insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s determination that loan proceeds received during the parties’ marriage were his separate property. Because he has not provided this court an adequate record on appeal, we reject his claim.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
The juvenile court denied O.T.’s (the minor) motion to suppress, and he admitted misdemeanor possession of metal knuckles (Pen. Code, § 21810).[1] The court declared the minor a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placed him on probation with various conditions.
The minor appeals. He contends: (1) the court violated his constitutional due process rights by “assum[ing] the role of the prosecutor” and questioning the prosecution witness at the suppression hearing; (2) the court erred by denying his motion to suppress; and (3) certain probation conditions are vague and overbroad. We modify one probation condition. As modified, we affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Jose Juan Luna appeals from his judgment of conviction after a remand for resentencing (case No. H043296) and from the trial court’s subsequent order correcting the judgment of conviction for errors related to fines and fees (case No. H044111).[1] In both cases, counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Defendant was notified of his right to submit written arguments in both appeals within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed, and we have not received any letter briefs from defendant. Pursuant to Wende, we have conducted a review of the record in both case Nos. H043296 and H044111 and find no arguable issues. We affirm the judgments.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted defendant Kenneth Gary Mendenhall of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, §245, subd. (a)(1)); counts 3, 4, and 6), one count of domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 5), two counts of dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2); counts 7 and 8), one count of driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); count 9), one count of driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.5, subd. (a); count 11), and four counts of violating a protective order (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (c)(1); counts 12, 13, 14, and 15). The jury acquitted defendant of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); counts 1 and 2). The jury found true an allegation that defendant had a prior conviction for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23540). The trial court found two prior prison term allegations to be true (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant David Wayne Ashford was convicted by jury of grand theft auto (Pen. Code[1] §§ 484, 487, subd. (d)(1), a felony); theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), a felony); possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), a misdemeanor); and possession of drug paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, a misdemeanor). The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant three years’ formal probation. The conditions of defendant’s probation included that he not use controlled substances, including marijuana, and that he serve eight months in jail.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Ralph Edward Baldenegro was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole after a jury convicted him of first degree murder of Julie Bucalo (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))[1] and found true two special circumstance allegations under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17): that the murder was committed while defendant was committing or attempting to commit a first degree burglary and a rape.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by: (1) restricting his cross-examination of the prosecution’s DNA expert; (2) admitting hearsay statements made by Bucalo; (3) admitting evidence of uncharged offenses; (4) admitting evidence of uncharged offenses during the prosecution’s rebuttal case; and (5) excluding evidence of third party culpability involving Bucalo’s boyfriend and her dog. Defendant also contends the prosecutor violated his due process rights by failing to turn over exculpatory evidence. Finally, he contends there was cumulative prejudice. |