500 matching results for "mk":
From CA Unpub Decisions
William Grant Crooks appeals an order entered after a jury trial extending his involuntary commitment to a state psychiatric hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b). Crooks contends that substantial evidence did not support the jury's finding that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder, and has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
H.A. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights over B.B. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother, a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Indian Tribe (the Tribe), claims that the juvenile court violated the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and its state equivalent (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.) when it found that Mother's continued custody of B.B. likely would result in serious emotional or physical damage to B.B., both because the court applied an incorrect standard of proof and failed to base its detriment finding on evidence provided by a qualified expert witness. Further, Mother argues that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's finding that active efforts were made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and those efforts proved unsuccessful.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Cody Ned Ridley was convicted of burglary, false imprisonment, making criminal threats, attempting to dissuade a victim, and violating protective orders, all perpetrated against his estranged wife, Jane Doe. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for attempting to dissuade a victim and for residential burglary. We find substantial evidence supports the jury's findings on both charges. Ridley also contends, and the People agree, that the trial court erred in excluding a prior inconsistent statement proffered by Ridley. We accept the People's concession and find that the error was harmless. We also address sentencing issues raised by the parties and order corrections.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Steven Paul Haynes shot and killed his brother, Michael, in the front yard of their home. Haynes admitted killing Michael, but claimed it was heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter, not murder. Rejecting that contention, a jury convicted him of first degree murder and found true a gun enhancement allegation. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 12022.53, subd. (d).)
In separate proceedings, Haynes admitted a prior serious felony conviction. After granting Haynes's Romero motion, the court sentenced Haynes to prison for five years under section 667, subdivision (a), plus an indeterminate term of 50 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for murder, plus a consecutive 25 years to life for the gun enhancement. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted Steven Scott Wells of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and found true an allegation he personally used a deadly weapon (a screwdriver) to commit the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court then found Wells was the defendant in a prior attempted residential burglary case from another county and, after reviewing the record of conviction from the case, the jury found true an allegation Wells was convicted in the case. The conviction qualified as a prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7) and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The court sentenced Wells to 12 years in prison.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
This case returns on transfer from the California Supreme Court.
Defendant Christopher David Triplett appeals from partial denial of his petition to recall his sentence and reduce certain felonies to misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (the Act). He contends his two convictions for second degree burglary should be reduced to misdemeanors and the trial court erred in relying on facts outside the record and misunderstood the law. He further contends, for the first time on appeal, that two of his one-year prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) should be stricken. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Cipriano Torres Lopez appeals his conviction by plea to one count of forcible lewd conduct upon a child under the age of 14 , two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 with whom appellant lived, and one count of lewd conduct on a child who was 14 or 15 years old. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to 29 years state prison, ordered to pay various fines, fees and restitution, and was advised that he was facing mandatory deportation once the sentence was served. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 4, 2018, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received from appellant.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Hector Hernandez was charged with possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 1). The information also alleged that on May 15, 2012, he had suffered a prior conviction in case No. TA123182 for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 11351. After a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty as charged and found true the prior conviction allegation. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment of conviction.
Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have reviewed the record, conclude the record reveals no arguable issue on appeal, and thus affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
J.G. appeals from the judgment entered after the juvenile court sustained a juvenile petition (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 602) for second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court declared the offenses felonies and placed appellant home on probation. Appellant contends that the field identification of appellant and his cohorts, conducted minutes after the strong-arm robbery, was unduly suggestive and violated his due process rights. We affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted Enrique Gonzalez of the 2004 first degree murder of Gregory Gabriel, who was shot by Gonzalez’s friend, Carlos Argueta. We affirmed Gonzalez’s conviction, but remanded to the trial court for resentencing as to the firearm enhancements. In 2008 the Supreme Court denied review
On June 2, 2014 the Supreme Court held in People v. Chiu that the natural and probable consequences theory of aiding and abetting a crime cannot be the basis for convicting a defendant of first degree murder. (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 167 (Chiu).) On October 20, 2017 Gonzalez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his first degree murder conviction under Chiu. Although we summarily denied the petition, the Supreme Court granted Gonzalez’s petition for review, directing this court to vacate our order denying the petition pursuant to Chiu and In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216 (Martinez). We now grant the petition. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
On January 6, 2017, appellant Graciela E. Ortiz filed her complaint in propia persona, alleging a single cause of action for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et. seq. (FEHA) against respondent American Companion and Caregivers (ACC). The complaint stated that appellant is “a female of Latino descent who was 55 at the time of the employment practices complained of.” It alleged that “Defendants” (collectively, respondent ACC and two other entities who are not parties to this appeal) wrongfully terminated her employment, illegally searched her property, wrongfully evicted her, took her personal belongings, and unlawfully discriminated against her. Appellant attached as exhibits a 1099 form showing earnings from respondent in 2015, and a medical form identifying herself as a “[r]etired [e]mployee” as of June 2015.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Eddie Goodwin (Goodwin) appeals a family court order declaring him a vexatious litigant and requiring him to obtain permission before filing future litigation in propria persona. We consider whether the order must be reversed because it was not preceded by a noticed motion.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
ASAP Copy and Print filed the initial complaint in this action a decade ago. The complaint alleged misrepresentations and breach of contract concerning services provided in connection with the lease of a photocopier. Respondent Canon Solutions America, Inc. (CSA) is the successor in interest to Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (CBS), a defendant in the underlying action.
Including the three appeals at issue here, ASAP has pursued nine appeals in this case. The first two appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of ASAP’s claims following successful demurrers. (ASAP Copy & Print v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc. (June 4, 2012) Nos. B224295 & B225702, 2012 |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Following a bench trial, defendant and appellant Gulnora Djama was convicted of allowing a mischievous animal to cause serious bodily injury to another person, criminal threats, and misdemeanor assault, and she pled no contest to misdemeanor unlawful transportation of marijuana. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Djama on probation for three years. On appeal, Djama contends there is insufficient evidence to support her conviction for criminal threats. We affirm.
|