Court of Appeal Stats 8/14/2014

A list of the unpublished decisions from all six appellate districts is included below.

Date Posted Docket #/ File Format Description Date filed Type of case Decision Appellant Self represented Judge issuing opinion
08/14/14 G049062

[PDF] [DOC]

In re S.G. CA4/3 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 09/25/13 juvenile delinquent affirm no Thompson
08/14/14 E059225

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Wade CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 07/23/13 cr affirm no Ramirez
08/14/14 E058473

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Armstrong CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 04/03/13 cr The judgment is reversed with directions for the trial court to conduct a hearing at which defendant shall have a full opportunity to state his reasons for desiring the 11
appointment of new counsel. The court shall determine the application for new counsel in light of Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118. If the court determines that good
cause for appointment of new counsel has been shown, the court shall appoint new
counsel and set the case for retrial. If the court determines that good cause has not
been shown, it shall reinstate the judgment
no Ramirez
08/14/14 E057917

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Harrison CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 01/18/13 cr The matter is remanded to the superior court for resentencing. On remand, the court is directed to stay the sentence on count 3 pursuant to section 654, and calculate the indeterminate and determinate sentences separately. The court should also strike the
prior prison enhancements on count 1, 3, and 5, make an express finding on the prior prison enhancement allegation, and determine whether it can apply the prior prison
enhancement to either counts 3 or 5, in accordance with the applicable law. The court
should further strike one of the serious prior felony conviction enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) on count 1, and recalculate defendant’s presentence custody credits pursuant to section 4019. The court should use the current version of the abstract of judgment.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
no Ramirez
08/14/14 B249085M

[PDF] [DOC]

In re Jessica F. CA2/1 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 04/26/13 juvenile order modifying opinion no change in judgment no Rothshild
08/14/14 A141346

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Sebring CA1/4 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 03/14/14 cr affirm yes Rivera
Date Posted Docket #/

File Format

Description          
08/14/14 F066891

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Corbin CA5 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 03/18/13 cr wende appeal The judgment is modified as follows: The two one-year prior prison term enhancements imposed as part of the concurrent term in case No. CRM023116 are stricken, the stay of those enhancements as to count 3 in case No. CRM024201 is
vacated, and those two enhancements are imposed without reference to any particular 7
count(s). The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
no Cornell
08/14/14 E060666

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Pruitt CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 02/14/14 cr wende appeal affirm no Hollenhurst
08/14/14 E059491

[PDF] [DOC]

In re D.T. CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 08/22/13 juvenile remand to comply with ICWA no Ramirez
08/14/14 E058891

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Dunham CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 05/28/13 cr affirm no Ramirez
08/14/14 E057770

[PDF] [DOC]

Marriage of Aguina and Kang CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 12/17/12 civil family law affirm no King
08/14/14 B250070

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Miranda CA2/5 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 07/16/13 cr In case No. SA083144 the judgment is modified to award defendant credit for 199
days in presentence custody, but no additional conduct credit. Upon remittitur issuance,
the trial court is to hold a hearing as to defendant’s ability to pay a $10 local crime
prevention programs fine. This includes the ability to pay the $10 fine together with $31

in applicable penalties and a surcharge. The trial court may impose a lesser fine or none at all. The superior court clerk is to amend the abstract of judgment to: reflect the local
crime prevention programs fine; identify the penalties and surcharge imposed; and to award defendant 199 days of presentence custody credit but no additional conduct credit.

In case No. BA398422, the oral pronouncement of judgment is modified to impose
a $30 court facilities assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373,
subdivision (a)(1). Upon remittitur issuance, the superior court clerk shall amend the
abstract of judgment to include: $40 in court operations assessments (Pen. Code, §
1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); $30 in court facilities assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd.
(a)(1)); a $240 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); and a $240 parole
revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45).

no Turner
08/14/14 B247904

[PDF] [DOC]

Kamrany v. Shahryar CA2/5 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 03/26/13 civil judgment reversed yes Turner
08/14/14 A141965

[PDF] [DOC]

T.S. v. Super. Ct. CA1/1 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 05/27/14 juvenile writ petition denied no Margulies
08/14/14 A139906

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Juarez CA1/5 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 09/30/13 cr wende appeal We order the trial court to: (1) issue an amended abstract of judgment showing the
court imposed the $365 restitution report fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1b; and
(2) to forward a certified abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. 
no Jones
08/14/14 A136698

[PDF] [DOC]

Ronnoco Properties of Pleasanton v. Crossroads CEIC Partners CA1/1 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 09/27/12 civil affirm no Becton
08/14/14 H040178

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Petitta CA6 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 09/09/13 cr wende appeal affirm no Mihara
08/14/14 E056253

[PDF] [DOC]

Gonzales v. County of Riverside CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 05/11/12 civil affirm no Miller
08/14/14 B253578

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Mendez CA2/3 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 01/06/14 cr wende appeal affirm no Klein
08/14/14 B252495

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Brumfield CA2/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 10/22/13 cr wende appeal affirm no Ashmann-Gerst
08/14/14 B252111

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Alcalde CA2/8 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 10/02/13 cr wende appeal affirm no Rubin
08/14/14 B251575

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Madrid CA2/8 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 09/10/13 cr affirm no Rubin
08/14/14 B250972

[PDF] [DOC]

Rickley v. Jamison CA2/3 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 08/21/13 civil affirm no Croskey
08/14/14 B200061

[PDF] [DOC]

McIntyre v. BNC Mortgage CA2/3 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 06/07/07 civil appeal dismissed as moot no Aldrich
08/14/14 A139237

[PDF] [DOC]

Hills v. J.B. Hunt Transport CA1/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 07/11/13 civil affirm no Richman
08/14/14 A138750

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Ward CA1/5 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 05/22/13 cr affirm no Bruiniers
08/14/14 E055460

[PDF] [DOC]

Armijo v. Mason CA4/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 01/11/12 civil affirm yes Miller
08/14/14 D065786

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Rios CA4/1 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 07/17/12 cr reversed no Haller
08/14/14 D065378

[PDF] [DOC]

In re Sebastian Z. Ca4/1 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 02/05/14 juvenile The order selecting adoption as Sebastian’s permanent plan and terminating
parental rights is affirmed.
no Haller
08/14/14 C075806

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Hake CA3 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 02/14/14 cr wende appeal affirm no Mauro
08/14/14 C074371

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Brazil CA3 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 07/24/13 cr wende appeal affirm no Mauro
08/14/14 C067330

[PDF] [DOC]

Slothower v. No. California Inalliance CA3 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 02/02/11 civil affirm no Raye
08/14/14 B251441

[PDF] [DOC]

In re M.M. CA2/2 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 09/10/13 juvenile affirm no Ferns
08/14/14 A140155

[PDF] [DOC]

Christina L. v. Chauncey B. CA1/4 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 10/25/13 civil family law reversed father needs to show rebuttable presumption pursuant to ca family code 3044. (See F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1, 28–29 [on remand, trial court should expressly find whether section 3044 presumption had been rebutted].) no Rivera
08/14/14 A138978

[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. West CA1/5 filed 8/14/14 Case Details 06/17/13 cr We remand for resentencing on count two so the court may impose the sentence
and then stay it. We also remand for resentencing on count three so the court may impose a full low, middle, or upper term as a concurrent term.
no Simons
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s