500 matching results for "abundy":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant Sammy Lee Moses asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded with a supplemental brief, contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel and an unauthorized sentence. Finding no merit in his contentions and no other arguable issues on appeal, we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Joseph Mendez, Jr., was found guilty by jury as charged in count 1 of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) ; in count 2 of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a)/664); in count 3 of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)); in count 4 of possession of a loaded firearm in public by an active gang member (§ 25850, subd. (c)(3)); and in count 5 of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Mendez to life without parole on count 1, plus 25 years to life on the enhancement. It further imposed a consecutive term of life with the possibility of parole on count 2, plus 25 years to life on the enhancement. Sentence was stayed on the remaining counts pursuant to section 654.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Petitioner G.W. (Father) has filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, claiming that the juvenile court erred at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22 hearing in finding that returning A.W. (Minor) to Father’s care would be detrimental and that San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) provided reasonable services. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Father’s writ petition.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Corin Roy Jackson, Sr. was charged in one case with crimes arising out of his physical attacks on his wife and children. He was also charged in a separate case with a crime arising out of his physical attack on a fellow inmate in jail.
Defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and admitted all enhancements. At sentencing, however, he made a Marsden motion (see People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), seeking to have new counsel appointed for the purpose of filing a motion to withdraw the plea; he asserted that his current counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by, among other things, giving him bad advice in connection with the plea. The trial court denied the motion and proceeded with sentencing. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant and appellant Carlos Linares Fuentes appeals from his 135-year-to-life sentence imposed after a jury convicted him in 2016 of nine counts of forcible lewd acts that he committed on his girlfriend’s two young children over a three-year period.
Defendant argues the matter should be remanded for resentencing because: (1) the trial court believed it lacked discretion to impose a sentence of less than 135 years to life, and defense counsel failed to correct the court’s error; (2) the imposition of nine consecutive terms of 15 years to life is cruel and unusual under these facts; and (3) the court erroneously believed the $4,300 sex offense fine was mandatory despite defendant’s lack of ability to pay. As discussed post, we modify the judgment to delete the $4,300 fine, but otherwise affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury found Ted Preston Howard guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). In a separate proceeding, the court found Howard had not established he was insane at the time of the offense. The court subsequently sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison.
Howard appeals, contending we must reduce his conviction from first degree murder to second degree murder because there was insufficient evidence to support the premeditation and deliberation elements of first degree murder. In addition, he contends we must remand the matter for a new sanity trial because the court abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance to allow him to be further evaluated for malingering his psychotic symptoms. Lastly, he contends we should direct the court to correct two clerical errors in the abstract of judgment. We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the premeditation and deliberation elements of first degree murder. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Dorian Anguiano's appeal follows the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He contends his plea was based upon mistake because his retained counsel informed him he could withdraw his plea before sentencing. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion to withdraw the plea. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and we affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiff Authorized City Towing (ACT) appeals from an order granting a motion by TEGSCO, LLC, doing business as San Francisco AutoReturn (AutoReturn) for attorney fees and costs against ACT under Civil Code section 3426.4 of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (§ 3426 et seq.) (UTSA). The court awarded AutoReturn attorney fees under section 3426.4 based on its finding that ACT prosecuted its misappropriation of trade secrets claim against AutoReturn in bad faith.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Dung T. Thu Tran (Tran) and her sister, Ann F. Sorensen, disputed ownership of a home purchased by their parents in 1976. Attempting to resolve the dispute, Sorensen filed an action for quiet title, among other claims, against Tran and Tran's two children, Mae Anna Workman (Mae) and Paul Ross Workman (Paul). In response, Tran filed a cross-complaint alleging Sorensen committed fraud by fabricating and concealing various deed transfers, and asserting additional claims. The trial court bifurcated the complaint and conducted a bench trial on the cause of action for quiet title, during which the court made findings regarding the authenticity of the contested deed transfers. The court then concluded those findings would have a collateral estoppel effect on Tran's fraud claim and, thus, dismissed Tran's fraud cause of action.
On appeal, Tran asserts she was entitled to a jury trial on Sorensen's quiet title action and her own cross-claim for fraud. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant Timothy James Guarino filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
On April 16, 2015, Sacramento Police Officers Wollman and Schneider were dispatched on a call of a theft of a GPS-enabled iPad. Using “Find my iPhone” application, Officer Wollman tracked the iPad to an apartment complex which had eight units. Officer Wollman was able to narrow the area to four units and the officers began knocking on those doors. D.G. lived in apartment 340. Officer Wollman explained that he wanted to search her apartment for the iPad. D.G. permitted the officers to search her two-bedroom apartment. Defendant Roger Williams walked out of the rear bedroom. Officer Wollman searched the rear bedroom and found a loaded revolver in the closet on the upper shelf. The closet contained both male and female clothing. When Officer Wollman asked defendant and D.G. about the firearm, defendant stated it belonged to a family member. Defendant denied he had a felony arrest. Defendant later stated that he had been arrested for a felony but was convicted of a misdemean
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant Gabriel Erazo has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant and cross-complainant Ronald Brown appeals from a default judgment, contending the trial court erred in imposing terminating sanctions for his failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders. He also appeals from the order denying his motion to vacate the default judgment, contending he demonstrated excusable neglect.
For the reasons explained below, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in imposing terminating sanctions. Accordingly, we reverse the default judgment and remand the matter. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant John James Penn appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of the willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Ja. J. in violation of section 187, subdivision (a) of the Penal Code (unless otherwise set forth, statutory section references that follow are found in the Penal Code) and found to be true the allegations that defendant committed the murder while he was engaged in the commission of a robbery within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(A), that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder within the meaning of sections 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1) and 12022.5, subdivision (a).
|