500 matching results for "abundy":
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted defendant Brandon Anthony Amador of numerous sex offenses against a six-year-old victim as well as possession of child pornography. Sentenced to state prison for a determinate term of 23 years plus an indeterminate term of 40 years to life, defendant appeals. He contends (1) in connection with sexual penetration (count 3), the trial court failed to instruct on the lesser included offense of attempted sexual penetration, (2) in connection with forcible lewd conduct (counts 2, 4, 6, and 8), insufficient evidence supports the element of force, violence, duress, menace, and threat of great bodily injury, and (3) in connection with possession of child pornography (count 9), the trial court erred in failing to stay punishment pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We reject all of defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Andrew Meghdadi appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside a default. He claims the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting his argument that the default should be set aside because of his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.)
Because Meghdadi filed his notice of appeal weeks before the default judgment was entered, he has appealed from a nonappealable order and we will dismiss the appeal. But even if we were to address the merits of his claim, Meghdadi would not be successful on appeal because he has not provided us with an adequate record to establish that the trial court abused its discretion. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Using his truck, defendant Joseph Paul Leonard struck and killed a man on a bicycle and attempted to kill another man a short time after the three fought at a nearby restaurant. He appeals his convictions of first degree murder and attempted premeditated murder, alleging the following errors: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it reopened argument in response to a jury question on the issue of intent and the jury’s impasse; (2) the court erred by not instructing on the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect defense of another; (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not requesting an instruction on provocation as negating premeditation and deliberation; and (4) insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding the murder and attempted murder were premeditated.
We affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
This case comes to us following the successful demurrer without leave to amend of defendant Myers Power Products, Inc. (Myers). Plaintiff Blocka Construction, Inc. (Blocka) was the prime contractor on a public works construction project owned by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Blocka entered into an agreement with Independent Electrical Supply (Independent) to supply electrical equipment. Independent, in turn, entered into an agreement with Myers to supply electrical equipment. Blocka filed this action after it tried and failed to get Myers to provide documentation that Blocka needed to get paid for change orders.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Katrina K., the mother of three-year-old M.F. (Minor), appeals from a series of juvenile court orders. We dismiss the appeal pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 843, 866, and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Petitioner C.G. (Father), father of one-year-old P.G., seeks review by extraordinary writ, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, of the juvenile court’s orders terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) provided him with reasonable services. We shall deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Following a no contest plea, defendant Genove Alvarado was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) within 10 years of a prior felony DUI offense, felony driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more within 10 years of a prior felony DUI offense, misdemeanor providing false identification information to a police officer, and misdemeanor driving on a license that had been suspended or revoked for a DUI conviction. Defendant also admitted enhancement allegations alleging that he had committed the present offenses with a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 percent or more.
Relying on two purported factual misstatements by the trial court at sentencing, defendant argues that the denial of probation constituted an abuse of discretion. We conclude defendant waived his right to object to any factual errors by failing to object to them in the court below and, further, that any such errors were not prejudicial. Accordingly, we affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Patrick Daniel Cohen appeals from a judgment placing him on felony probation after a jury convicted him of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and making criminal threats. (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, 422.) He contends the trial court violated his rights under the confrontation clause by admitting into evidence the recording of a 911 call made by the victim, who was found to be unavailable and did not testify during the trial. Appellant also contends the trial court erred by imposing a $20 “security fee” that was duplicative of additional fees imposed under Penal Code section 1465.8. We agree the $20 fee must be stricken, but otherwise affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Laura Amy Fearn appeals from an order reducing her child support award from Jimmy Le Vu, and an order denying her request that Vu pay for some of her attorney fees. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the orders challenged by Fearn. We therefore affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellants James K. (father) and S.C. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s orders terminating their parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to their now 15-month-old son, James. After reviewing the juvenile court record, appellants’ court-appointed counsel informed this court they could find no arguable issues to raise on appellants’ behalf. This court granted appellants leave to personally file letters setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix).)
Appellants filed letters but failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the section 366.26 hearing. (Phoenix, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss their appeal. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant C.G., a mentally disordered offender (MDO), previously was subject to an involuntary medication order. He contends substantial evidence does not support the superior court’s July 3, 2017 order that he be involuntarily medicated. We disagree and affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Kevin Michael Westenberger pled no contest to unlawful possession of a firearm (count 1/Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and he admitted allegations that he had a prior strike within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm. However, during the review of the record we found certain errors in Westenberger’s abstract of judgment that we will direct the trial court to correct.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Rumaldo Andrew Carrillo was placed on probation after being found guilty of possession of marijuana for sale and cultivation of marijuana. He argues the electronic search condition imposed by the trial court as a condition of probation is unconstitutionally overbroad, and violates his constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. We reject his constitutional challenges because Carrillo failed to object to the condition in the trial court and thereby forfeited the right to argue on appeal the condition is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, we address and reject the contention on the merits.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Jedediah Richard Conelly stands convicted of second degree burglary, grand theft of personal property, receiving a stolen vehicle, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, and petty theft. He contends his sentence for receiving a stolen vehicle must be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 because it was part of one indivisible act of burglary. He also contends the abstract of judgment does not reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. We reject both contentions and affirm.
|