text:
Despicable Me 2 (US - DVD R1 | BD RA)
Universal has an official announcement on this super-popular animated sequel...
Starring: Living Twinkies
Released: 10th December 2013
Further Details:
Following it's massive box-office haul,
Despicable Me 2is coming to Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack (Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/UV Copy), Blu-ray Combo Pack (Blu-ray/DVD/UV Copy), and DVD.
Both the Blu-ray 3D and Blu-ray versions will include:
- DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 & DVS 2.0 English; DTS 5.1 Spanish and French audio
- English SDH, Spanish, and French subtitles
- Feature Commentary With Directors Chris Renaud & Pierre Coffin
- Three All-New Mini-Movies Starring the Minions with introduced by Gru
- Puppy
- Panic in the Mailroom
- Training Wheels
- The Making of the Mini-Movies – A fun-filled take on the making of the mini-movies through the eyes of the artists who made them.
- Deleted Scene
- Gru's Girls – Miranda Cosgrove, Elsie Kate Fisher and Dana Gaier weigh in on working with Steve Carell and playing the daughters of a world-famous super-villain!
- Gadgets Galore – Lipstick tasers, magnet ships, foam dart dispensers and jelly guns—these are the nifty gadgets of
Despicable Me 2. Illumination Entertainment pulls back the curtain on what it takes to build a world that would leave even James Bond envious.
- The Minions - A visit to Illumination Entertainment in Paris and Los Angeles to hear what it's really like to work with the Minions.
- Evil Minions – Bigger, badder and more purple than ever, the newest and fiercest addition to the Minion species can chew through metal and swallow a car. Find out more about the process that led to their creation and design.
- A Gru-Some Transformation – A sit-down with Steve Carell as he discusses the transformation of Gru from the ultimate super-villain to super-dad and international spy.
- El Hombre Malo: The Villainy Of El Macho – Every great story needs a good villain, and
Despicable Me 2brings on the diabolico in the form of El Macho! Learn about the creation of this character and the actor who brought him to life, Benjamin Bratt.
The single-disc DVD will include:
- Dolby Digital 5.1 & DVS 2.0 English; Dolby Digital 5.1 French and Spanish audio
- English SDH, French, and Spanish subtitles
- Gru's Girls
- Gadgets Galore
- Feature Commentary With Directors Chris Renaud & Pierre Coffin
Here's the Blu-ray Combo Pack cover art:
Quote: Gru, his adorable girls, and the mischievous Minions are back with a cast of unforgettable new characters in the blockbuster sequel to the worldwide phenomenon. Just as Gru has given up being super-bad to be a super-dad, the Anti-Villain League recruits him to track down a new criminal mastermind and save the world. Partnered with secret agent Lucy Wilde, Gru, along with the wildly unpredictable Minions, must figure out how to keep his cover while also keeping up with his duties as a father.
News by Gabriel Powers
Existing Posts
"Starring: Living Twinkies" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-D
I hope that they give a retailer the same exclusive they gave Best Buy on the 1st Despicable Me's home release, a "Maximum Movie Mode" that thru an app on your smartphone translated what the minions were saying.
been waiting for this to be announced
Follow our updates
Hot Reviews
Ghost Ship AU - DVD R4 Denon AVR-2803 HK - DVD Return of the Living Dead III US - BD RA Donnie Darko UK - BD RB Punisher: Uncut Special Edition, The AT - DVD
Award Winning
Escape Plan UK - BD RB Zodiac: Director's Cut US - HD Avatar US - BD RA 2012 UK - BD Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith US - DVD R1
Reviewer Agony
First Knight UK - BD Hatchet 2 UK - BD RB Da Vinci Code : Extended Edition, The UK - BD Incredible Melting Man, The UK - DVD R2 | BD RB Mystery Science Theatre 3000: The Movie UK - BD RB
Most Talked About
Thing: Collector's Edition, The US - BD RA Donnie Darko UK - BD RB Carrie: Collector's Edition US - BD RA The Man Who Fell to Earth US - BD RA Secret Life of Pets, The US - BD RA


text:
The official list of the Big 12's top 25 players is locked away in a vault in an undisclosed location, but we're revealing the list day by day here on the blog. Here's a refresher on my exact criteria.
We're inside the top 10 now, so things should heat up a little bit. Have a gripe with the list? We're chatting later today. I'm ready if you are.
No. 10: Brandon Weeden, QB, Oklahoma State
2010 numbers: Weeden completed 342 of 511 passes for 4,277 yards, 34 touchdowns and 13 interceptions.
Most recent ranking: Weeden was unranked in our preseason list of the Big 12's top 25 players.
Making the case for Weeden: Weeden's placement on my list is going to naturally draw comparison to the man just below him, Oklahoma's Landry Jones, and that's not on accident.
It's very, very close between the two, but in comparing last year's performance, I lean Weeden for one big reason, the same reason I gave Weeden my vote on the All-Big 12 first team.
The biggest difference for me is looking at what happened in both teams' losses. Oklahoma lost to Missouri in part because of a complete fourth-quarter meltdown, not helped by Jones' performance. He was 0-of-7 with an interception in the final 15 minutes of the nine-point loss, which Oklahoma led entering the fourth quarter. It wasn't the only reason the Sooners' suffered their first loss, but the numbers say enough.
He also threw a pick in the red zone earlier in the game that Missouri returned 58 yards. The loss to Texas A&M wasn't Jones' fault, but you can't get shut out in the first half of a Big 12 road game and expect to win. At the core, I think plenty of the blame there hangs on the quarterback's shoulders.
Oklahoma State, meanwhile, played pretty well on offense in both losses. Weeden especially. He made big throws to try and keep up with Nebraska's offense and hit 18 of 35 passes for 283 yards against the Huskers' elite secondary. Weeden's performance against Nebraska was surpassed only by Jones, who helped beat the Huskers in the Big 12 title game.
Both threw three interceptions in their head-to-head matchup, but one of Jones' went for a touchdown the other way. From my perspective, it seems like Jones is much more apt to make the back-breaking mistake, and even Oklahoma fans would probably agree with that.
Weeden has Jones beat on yards per attempt (8.37 vs. 7.65), but considering how often Jones throws bubble passes as an extension of Oklahoma's running game, his pass attempts are somewhat inflated and the difference in yards per attempt is negligible. Those swing passes and 106 more attempts also negate the 500 more yards Jones threw for than Weeden, which illustrates just how close these two really are. It's really a coin flip.
Both are basically equals when they're at their best, but if I'm picking a quarterback, I want consistency. Weeden best personifies that, and in one season, has established himself as the Big 12's best quarterback and the league's No. 10 player.
The rest of the list:
No. 11: Landry Jones, QB, Oklahoma
No. 12: Lavonte David, LB, Nebraska
No. 13: Robert Griffin III, QB, Baylor
No. 14: Levy Adcock, RT, Oklahoma State
No. 15: Alfonzo Dennard, CB, Nebraska
No. 16: Blaine Gabbert, QB, Missouri
No. 17: Jeff Fuller, WR, Texas A&M
No. 18: Eric Hagg, DB, Nebraska
No. 19: DeMarco Murray, RB, Oklahoma
No. 20: Orie Lemon, LB, Oklahoma State
No. 21: Jared Crick, DT, Nebraska
No. 22: Travis Lewis, LB, Oklahoma
No. 23: Quinton Carter, S, Oklahoma
No. 24: Tim Barnes, C, Missouri
No. 25: Lyle Leong, WR, Texas Tech

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The town of Stillwater has a very unwelcome resident.
The town of Stillwater has been dying - the long and painful death of a town ravaged by floods and haunted by the ghosts of all who had lived there. Yet this most recent flood has brought something with it - a creature that nests among the good folks of Stillwater...and feeds off them. The children who haven't disappeared whisper the same word - "vampire". But they're wrong. What has come to Stillwater is something much more horrific.
©2015 Ronald Malfi (P)2015 Audio Realms Publishing Company
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
"Creepy, atmospheric, small town horror"
Interesting characters and mystery mixed with a creeping terror make it compeling throughout. I love a good atmospheric horror show and I could sink my teeth into this one. Good scene detail to draw you in. I wasn't sure I cared much for the form of the monsters as a PHYSICAL threat initially, but there was a particular scene later in the story that put you in the immediate action of an attack with very intimate, gruesome detail and I admitted that the monsters were a success overall and pretty original as well. I was hoping for it to come earlier in the story was all. Ultimately it paid off in spades and no complaints. Was glad I purchased and listened through. Well done Mr. Malfi! Would love to see more just like this.
"Crazy Bat"
Story started slow but gets much better toward the end. I'm almost finished with the book and I'm just sorry the story took so long to unfold even an inkling of what is going on. It took too long and I really don't care enough about the characters except the teenage girl Brandi and Ben, the cop. I know something is happening in the beginning but nothing ties together. Patience is needed to get to the end. Bats, vampire children and a town that can't protect itself? It makes small police departments look inept. I think town residents would have reacted a lot sooner and in more numbers. Events of mutilated cattle just seemed like another day at the farm..Children disappearing but Shirley the police dispatcher takes it all in stride until she is almost attacked then just briefly reacts.
Could have been a lot better but certainly not the worst.
"Great Story"
I really enjoyed this book!! The story kept my attention and several times it had me on the edge of my seat, that is something I cannot say about the majority of books I have listened to! I will be looking for other books by this author.
This was a good book but I would have liked to know more about the creature earlier in the story so as to build more suspense.
"Never delivers"
The vivid depiction of the slowly dying town created a great setting for the underachieving story.
The setting was the most interesting. The characters and their embarrassingly poor logic was the least interesting.
Lost count of how many times a character was described in lengthy detail as being on the verge of losing their mind. Got old by the 4th or 5th character.
FIVE STAR HORROR. Perhaps the best horror novel I've read since I was 14 years old (nearly 30 years ago!) sitting in a recliner one snowy day completely absorbed in Stephen King's Salem's Lot. Malfi is, in my opinion, right up there with the greats: King, Simmons, McCammon. This audio book kept me company on my drive from Phoenix to Los Angeles, on a five mile hike, and two work commutes. There was never a dull moment in The Narrows; I was never bored. Every character came alive, the suspense built layer by layer, the plot never faded into obscurity. I plan to read everything that is Ronald Malfi. Highly recommended.
"What a great book."
I really loved this book, it reminded me of early King. Definitely kept me going until the end.
"Keeps your attention"
Overall, this was a good story. But Lord, it took a while to get there.
Not that I am aware of but his narration kept me going when the story lagged. I would gladly listen to another performance by him
"Great Read"
Awesome book!! Characters were very likeable & once story began to take off it was hard to put down!
"Can't believe the reviews on this?"
A better story or writer? I haven't read anything by this author that I know of, maybe this is why. It was just plain boring until about 3 hours from the end, which is where I'm at now. I had to pause it and listen to more Demon Accords. I will finish it, but only because I spent a credit and can't afford to stop now. Seriously, this thing is boring!
John Conroe - The Demon Accords - BK09 - God Hammer
It wasn't his performance, it was the long, lazy story. It appeared that this author tried to duplicate the "Stranger Things" series without much success.
It will be a long time before I try another of his books. Maybe if I find it on sale for $3.95 or something; and I'm seriously desperate.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.


text:
WATCH: Betsy Brandt Auditions for 'Breaking Bad'
Missing Marie from "Breaking Bad?" Check out Betsy Brandt's audition for the AMC smash hit, right here!
WATCH: Betsy Brandt Auditions for 'Breaking Bad'
Missing Marie from "Breaking Bad?" Check out Betsy Brandt's audition for the AMC smash hit, right here!
Kids Now Casting 'Walking War Robot' and Other Projects
The generation that grew up on PlayStation and Xbox are now having kids of their own—which means parent-child bonding over first-person shooters and robotic warfare! Get cast in this exciting new video game commercial!
Texas Now Casting 'Don't Ever Change' and More Auditions
Texas-based talent is needed for the upcoming independent short film "Don't Ever Change."
Now Casting 'Myth' and 3 More Projects
Have you always wanted to play a tragic Shakespearean villain or a budding filmmaker? Check out these four projects happening on the East Coast and beyond, and find your next audition here!
Kids Now Casting Ghost Story 'The Vermont House'
Writer-director Andy Mitton and producer Richard King is now casting "The Vermont House," an indie, haunted house horror feature that will surely have you spooked.
Now Casting 'Terezin' and 3 More Great Gigs
This week there are tons of opportunities in Backstage to make yourself known everywhere. Check out four awesome casting notices, including a play set to open at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival!
6 of This Week's Top Casting Notices!
From an overseas opportunity with Disneyland to a horror film shooting out of upstate New York, this week's casting notices offer a variety of opportunities to Backstage actors. See which you want to audition for next!
L.A. Now Casting 'Teleport' Commercial and 2 Other Projects
Today's top casting notices includes several roles for a promotional video shot in Los Angeles for the mobile application Teleport, a true-crime series, and the Geffen Playhouse's 2016–2017 season. See which are a good fit for you!
Let Your Child Actor Audition for Representation
Are you seeking representation? The Los Angeles– and New York–based Across the Board Talent Agency is holding auditions for union and nonunion in May!
Texas Now Casting 'Priscilla, Queen of the Desert' and More Projects
Texas-based talent is needed for the ZACH Theatre's upcoming production of "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert!"


text:
Kevin Morrow
(315) 443-3784
Kevin Morrow
To ensure Syracuse University's ability to attract and retain world-class educators in a competitive market, the SU Board of Trustees has allocated $30 million from the University's endowment for a new Faculty Today program, a gift challenge initiative created to encourage donors to endow faculty chairs and professorships.
Designed to accelerate the University's ability to recruit and retain world-class faculty, the Faculty Today program will supplement the earnings from a newly endowed fund of $1 million or more for five years. In addition, the school or college where the chair or professorship is established will provide a matching contribution, multiplying the buying power of the endowment gift and enabling SU to more rapidly hire and retain outstanding faculty.
"This significant commitment by the board provides our schools and colleges a new, innovative way to retain, reward and attract outstanding faculty," says Board of Trustees Chair John H. Chapple '75. "Faculty excellence is one of the highest priorities of The Campaign for Syracuse University because we know that having world-class professors ensures a top-quality education for our students and bolsters our competitiveness among peer institutions."
Of the $30 million being allocated, $25 million is earmarked to attract new "star" faculty and $5 million is intended to support new chairs and professorships for outstanding current faculty. "Competition for top-ranked faculty is intense and will become even more so as members of the Baby Boom generation begin to retire," says SU Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric F. Spina. "The Faculty Today program is a way for us to 'supercharge' our buying power. It boosts the value of an already generous gift, allowing us to support an outstanding educator today, instead of years from now."
For example, if a donor establishes a faculty chair with a $1 million endowment gift, the income available in the first year will be about $40,000. When the fund's earnings are combined with Faculty Today dollars of $40,000 and the school/college contribution of $40,000, the available funds are essentially tripled. The resulting $120,000 can be used in the fund¿s first year to attract faculty with competitive salary packages, as well as the sophisticated research facilities, graduate assistants and other incentives faculty often require. As the initial gift increases, so do the dollars available. A fund created with a $2 million gift generates a total of $240,000; a fund established with a $5 million gift yields $600,000. After five years, the Faculty Today dollars are replaced through additional fundraising, realization of bequest commitments or reallocation of resources within the school/ college. For donors whose current financial circumstances do not allow for an immediate gift of $1 million or more, Faculty Today allows gifts to be made in installments and for donors age 70 or older offers the ability to fund a chair or professorship with a bequest. Examples of these can be found online at http://facultytoday.syr.edu.
"We have an outstanding array of faculty members who are engaged across the disciplines and in the community tackling the most important and challenging research and discovery work," says SU Chancellor and President Nancy Cantor. "We are excited that our Board has placed such value on the transformative impact of the work our faculty are doing and have dedicated these critical funds -- which will allow us to further support our best faculty already and attract promising newcomers."
Faculty Today is already proving successful. The program is being applied to several recently established funds supporting endowed faculty positions. Among them:
"A gift to endow a faculty position is extremely powerful," says Diane Lyden Murphy, dean of the College of Human Ecology. "Generous support from donors like the Falks enables us to engage the kind of educators who are magnets not only for the best students but for other top-ranked faculty. Having the value of their gifts multiplied by Faculty Today allows us to fill these faculty positions that much faster."
Through The Campaign for Syracuse University, SU seeks to raise a total of $300 million in support of faculty excellence. Other priorities of the $1 billion campaign -- the largest fundraising effort in the University's history -- include student access and support, interdisciplinary programs, capital projects and annual support.
"The campaign launched publicly in November 2007, and we are nearly 60 percent of the way to our goal, with over $580 million raised to date," says Brian Sischo, associate vice president of development and campaign director. "The Faculty Today program is a tremendous opportunity for donors to maximize the impact of their gift to The Campaign for Syracuse University and, at the same time, help us increase SU's overall endowment."
By driving Scholarship in Action further ahead, the campaign will support the University's ongoing mission to provide students, faculty and communities with the insights needed to incite positive and lasting change in the world. More information is available online at http://campaign.syr.edu.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
October 5, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTY BRAZIE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,v.FLORENCE ZENISEK, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Brian M. Miga, J.H.O.), entered February 10, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8.
Decided on October 5, 2012
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The order, among other things, directed respondent to stay away from petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Respondent, the fiance of petitioner's estranged husband, appeals from an order of protection entered in favor of petitioner and her children. Petitioner concedes that she failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of reckless endangerment, and we agree with respondent that petitioner also failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to the remaining offenses, i.e., disorderly conduct, harassment in the second degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law §§ 240.20, 240.26, 240.30; see also Matter of Marquardt v Marquardt, 97 AD3d 1112, 1113-1114).
The offense of disorderly conduct was not established because there was no evidence that respondent intended "to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creat[ed] a risk thereof" (Penal Law § 240.20 [emphasis added]). The offenses of harassment in the second degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree were not established because the evidence failed to show that respondent -- by arguing with her fiance and making threats against him and petitioner -- intended to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm petitioner, who was not present when the argument occurred. Although petitioner later listened to a recording of the argument that had been left as a message on her telephone, there is no evidence that respondent knew that her fiance had called petitioner during the argument and that her threats were being recorded on petitioner's telephone. We thus conclude that Family Court erred in failing to dismiss the petition (see Marquardt, 97 AD3d at 1113; see generally Matter of Woodruff v Rogers, 50 AD3d 1571, 1571-1572, lv denied 10 NY3d 717). Because we conclude that petitioner failed to establish that respondent committed a family offense, we need not reach respondent's remaining contention. Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
222 Mallard Ln #222
Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234
Your advisor is here to answer questions and guide you through the buying process.
Owners.com Agent
222 Mallard Ln #222 Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234
- Property type: Condominium
- County: Atlantic
Bedrooms: 3
# of Full Bathrooms: 2 # of Half Bathrooms: 1
County: Atlantic | Real Estate Area: Egg Harbor Twp | MLS #: 474883
Condo Features: Pool
School Information
Atlantic Regional School
Project Teach - Burlington
Atlantic Transitional Education Center
Project Teach - Atlantic
Trocki Hebrew Academy Of Atlantic County
32 students 4 student/teacher
Kids' Choice Academy
8 students 8 student/teacher
Property History & Valuation
Local Insights
Listing courtesy of: VRI HOMES-Egg Harbor Twp
Information is provided by South Jersey Shore Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc. Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. All properties are subject to prior sale, change or withdrawal. Listing(s) information is provided exclusively for consumers' personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing. Copyright © 2016 South Jersey Shore Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc. All rights reserved.
For issues regarding this website and/or listing search engine, please contact Owners.com support at [email protected] or (800) 475-7738.
Local Insights
Tools for buyers
Some properties which appear for sale on this web site may subsequently have sold or may no longer be available.
All information provided is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified.
Ready to sell? We've got you covered.
Enter Password
To access this content, please confirm your account password below.
Email sent
Check your inbox at and follow the instructions to reset your password.


text:
- Worldwide Rank #14,859,206
- Follower/Following Ratio 1.52
- Daily New Followers 1
kaede Twitter Stats
@0111_kaepo - Tracking kaede Twitter profile since February 28, 2014
kaede Tweets
@0111_kaepo has posted 1,239 tweets in the last 6 days, which translates to an average of 206.5 tweets per day.
kaede Twitter Followers
@0111_kaepo has 449 followers on Twitter.
This account is #14,859,206 in the worldwide rank of the most popular Twitter users.
kaede Following on Twitter
@0111_kaepo is following 295 Twitter accounts.
Last month this account stopped following 26 users.
kaede Predictions & Milestones
@0111_kaepo will hit 496 followers in the next 3 months, and 638 in one year.
You are on kaede's Twitter stats page
We track these Twitter stats since February 28, 2014 . You can see how many followers kaede lost or gained and what the prediction is for tomorrow or the next 15 days, together with all kinds of other stats like rank compared to all Twitter users, tweets etc.
Why don't you give it a try and compare kaede to yourself ? Or if you are kaede get even more feature rich & up-to-date stats with our premium Twitter Stats.
Twitter Counter is the #1 Twitter stats site powered by Twitter. It all started in June 12, 2008 and we grew rather rapidly because of our Twitter Counter badge. The button is a nice small image that shows your visitors how many followers you have on Twitter. Within a year the button was on many many blogs around the world and we displayed more than 100 million buttons in one month. We track follower stats for over 180 million users now.


text:
Apartment for rent in san, Argentina
3 Matches
Perfect For Family Vacations: Located in San Isidro, 25 Minutes Distance From BaSan Isidro
The condo, 'Jardines de San Isidro', is located in Liniers 1642, San Isidro, Buenos Aires Province. The apt. is located in the 2nd floor and has 137 m2 (1,474 ft2) including a big balcony looking at tArea 2Baths 3Beds
Lake View Apartment With Jacuzzi, Near The Center Of Bariloche.San Carlos de Bariloche
With a nice lake view fron the living room, the apartment has also a separate bedroom , kitchen and one bathroom with jacuzzi. Ideal para vacaciones romanticas en pareja. Disfruta todas las comodidadeArea 0Baths 1Beds
Attractive 1BR cottage near lakeSan Carlos de Bariloche
New, attractive and comfortable fully-furnished cottage a few metres from the lake and 5 minutes from the civic center. It is a very safe place, surrounded by countryside and naturaArea 1Baths 1Beds


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin
July 10, 2013
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.JOSEPH WEBER, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County Super. Ct. No. SF105311A Bernard J. Garber and Richard Vlavianos, Judges.
J. Edward Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Judy Kaida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant Joseph Weber of unlawful possession of a gun and of ammunition. (Pen. Code, §§ 12021, subd. (c)(1), 12316, subd. (b)(1).) The jury acquitted him of violating a court order and making criminal threats. (Pen. Code, §§ 273.6, 422.) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for three years, and defendant timely filed his notice of appeal.
On appeal, defendant principally contends the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta[1] inquiry, to ensure that defendant was competent to waive the assistance of counsel, actually wanted to waive counsel, and knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel. The record shows that the trial court attempted to provide standard Faretta admonitions on the record, but defendant repeatedly interrupted with frivolous objections to the proceedings, as he did throughout the case. We conclude defendant was trying to inject reversible error into the case by insisting on his right to proceed without counsel, but thwarting the trial court's ability to complete standard Faretta admonitions. Further, the trial court did ascertain on the record that defendant understood he would be held to the same standards as an attorney, that the trial court would not assist him in representing himself, and that another trial judge had recently allowed defendant to represent himself in a criminal case. In these circumstances, we conclude the record supports the trial court's finding that defendant knowingly and voluntarily chose to waive counsel.
Defendant also contends that the trial court improperly failed to appoint counsel to represent him at the sentencing hearing, and improperly imposed the upper state prison term. We conclude that these contentions, too, lack merit.
Finally, under People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 (Brown), defendant is not entitled to further presentence custody credit. We affirm the judgment.[2]
Daniel Smith testified he married defendant's former wife, and on August 6, 2006, he obtained a restraining order against defendant. Despite this order, defendant repeatedly drove behind Smith's car and repeatedly parked near Smith's workplace, where defendant made rude and threatening gestures, and at one point, while gesturing to an emblem on his back as he sat astride a motorcycle, defendant told Smith, " 'We're going to kick your fucking ass.' "
Documents showed defendant was convicted of spousal battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)) on July 5, 2000. This conviction prohibited him from possessing firearms or ammunition for 10 years. (Pen. Code, §§ 12021, subd. (c)(1), 12316, subd. (b)(1).) The jury was so instructed.[3]
Defendant's former wife in part testified that defendant had previously held a knife to her throat.
San Joaquin County Deputy Sheriff Edward Casseday testified that on May 10, 2007, he arrested defendant inside defendant's Stockton house. Deputy Casseday saw a "very old looking revolver" on a table or bookcase in the bedroom and he seized it. Deputy Nelida Stone testified that she and Deputy Matuska searched defendant and found a live round of ammunition in his pants pocket. When Deputy Casseday was recalled, defendant objected to the flag in the courtroom. Deputy Casseday then testified the round was a 7.63 millimeter Mauser round, and it could not be fired from the revolver he had seized. Although Deputy Casseday testified there was also a "live round" in the revolver, the unlawful ammunition count was based on the round discovered in defendant's pocket.
Deputy Carlos Prieto testified that he is the range master and armorer for the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department, and he has previously testified as a firearms expert. He testified the revolver was a replica of a Western-style cap and ball revolver, and although it had some rust on the finish, it was capable of firing ammunition.
After the People rested, defendant called Betty Ellen Perkins, his mother, and asked her questions designed to show that Smith had lied about defendant's purported violation of court orders and threats due to a custody battle involving defendant's son. She testified the revolver had belonged to defendant's father and when she had last seen it, it was "a rusted old piece of junk." She also testified defendant had served in the U.S. Marine Corps. She identified cigar cutters that had been fashioned from bullets, presumably by defendant, who described such activity in his opening statement.
In the middle of his mother's testimony, after she was prevented from giving her opinion about the significance of the flag, defendant clarified that it was the yellow fringe on the flag that he objected to, because in his view such flags are inappropriate except in military courtrooms. The trial court (Garber, J.) replied, "Well, you were in the Marines, and I was in the Army, " and that the yellow fringe on the bottom of the flag probably reflected nothing more than the county had bought the cheapest possible flags.
Defendant called Richard Gallegos, who testified there were no charges pending against defendant as a flesh and blood human being, and when the trial court cut off irrelevant questioning, defendant accused the judge of being biased. Eventually, Gallegos testified he had served as an armorer while in the military in Vietnam, and in his opinion the revolver could not be determined to be a firearm unless it was fired, and he did not think the revolver was the same "firearm" he had seen in defendant's house: "It's very similar to the one that I saw [but] the one that I saw was in [worse] condition than this by far." The gun he saw in defendant's house was not operable because the hammer could not be pulled back and the cylinder would not rotate, but those defects were not present on the revolver he examined in court.
Another defense witness testified defendant had asked him to make cigar cutters out of firearm rounds. The prosecutor elicited that this witness was a "Nomad, " a branch of the Hell's Angels.
Defendant testified in a narrative fashion. He admitted the object identified as a revolver was found in his house and the ammunition was in his pocket. He testified the gun was "a memento" but he did not believe it was a firearm because it was not operable. He admitted his former wife, that is, Smith's current wife, was the victim in his prior battery case. He knew he was not supposed to possess a firearm or ammunition.
The jury convicted defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, but acquitted him of charges that he threatened Smith and violated a court order.
I. Faretta Waiver
Defendant contends the record does not show he knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel. Defendant contends he was not competent to waive counsel, he never actually wanted to waive counsel, and the trial court did not conduct an adequate inquiry to ensure he knew the risks of self-representation. We disagree with these contentions.
A. Procedural Background
The complaint was filed on July 30, 2007. Defendant was represented by attorney Douglas Srulowitz through the March 11, 2008, arraignment on the information.
On April 28, 2008, Srulowitz asked to be relieved, and the public defender was appointed to represent defendant. When the trial court (Garber, J.) said that he did not understand defendant's paperwork, defendant replied: "Well, then, sir, I would suggest you get a competent attorney to discuss it with you." After more discussion, the trial court declared a doubt about defendant's competency, (Pen. Code, § 1368) appointed the public defender to represent him, and appointed two psychiatrists to evaluate him.
Both psychiatrists reported that defendant was malingering.
Dr. Gary Cavanaugh's report states defendant "was alert and partially cooperative but intense, very contentious, suspicious, and bombastic. He was evasive at times[.]" Defendant was of normal intelligence, but "he appeared focused on patriots and his constitutional rights" and there was some evidence of "paranoid ideation." "Mr. Weber's intent appears to be to thwart and prevent his prosecution" by using techniques "filed by or championed by organizations that challenge the legitimacy of the court or the United States government." Defendant had a personality disorder, with "Defiant, Narcissistic, and Paranoid Traits[, ]" but was "aware of the charges, knows the roles of the legal protagonists, understands that he is involved in an adversarial process, and knows possible outcomes."
Dr. Robert Hart's report states defendant was "cautious, articulate, and exceptionally legalistic." Defendant's intelligence was normal and his "specious, quasi-legal arguments" reflected "intellectual hubris as opposed to mental illness." Defendant probably had a narcissistic personality disorder, but he was "able to know and understand the charges against him and could assist counsel in presenting a rational defense, if he chose to do so[.]"
On June 12, 2008, the attorneys submitted the matter, and Judge Vlavianos found defendant was competent.
By letter dated July 3, 2008, the public defender advised defendant of an upcoming court date. Defendant wrote a rambling and paranoid letter in reply. In part the letter challenged the public defender's right to communicate with defendant and threatened to have any attorneys who tried to represent him arrested unless they presented their "bar card/certificate of admission and their attorneys [sic] license with their oath endorsed on the back[.]"
On July 16, 2008, defendant again appeared before Judge Vlavianos. The public defender stated defendant did not want "public defender representation." When Judge Vlavianos noted that Judge Agbayani had found defendant competent to "represent" himself in a separate case, defendant interjected, "I'm going to defend myself. To represent myself is the wrong term to use."
Although Judge Vlavianos explained that he had to make a record to support a finding that defendant was competent to represent himself, defendant refused to fill out a Faretta waiver form, refused to answer questions about his competency to waive counsel, objected to the flag on display in the courtroom, and moved to dismiss the case "on the basis of a speedy trial." Judge Vlavianos told defendant he had to file a written dismissal motion, relieved the public defender, stated that because defendant had been found competent to waive counsel in the other case, he could do so in this case, and asked defendant to look at the Faretta waiver form.
After a break, defendant asked: "Your Honor, is the Court trying to force me to waive my rights to privacy and the right to defend myself against my will and over my objections?" When Judge Vlavianos began to explain, defendant interrupted as follows: "THE COURT: You have the – you have your constitutional right to -- [¶] THE DEFENDANT: That's not what I asked you, sir. I asked you if you are trying to force me to give up those rights."
Possibly in response to a question on the Faretta form, defendant said he could not be held to the standards of an attorney.[4] Judge Vlavianos replied: "You are held to exactly the same standard as an attorney and you will get no breaks and no special treatment because you're representing yourself. You will be held to exactly the same standard as an attorney, which means if you want to file a motion you have to notice the other side, you have to do it in the appropriate amount of time, you have to try it with points and authorities, and you have to give the legal basis for it."
When Judge Vlavianos asked if defendant understood, defendant said: "Well, I got documentation that shows the Court to notice that I'm not supposed to but that's what you say. Yeah, I can handle it. [¶] THE COURT: What is it that you see the role of a pro per defending himself? [¶] THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to defend myself." Judge Vlavianos repeatedly asked what defendant's role would be at trial, and defendant repeatedly replied with variations on "I have the proper documentation and everything I need to defend myself, and that's all I have to say."
When Judge Vlavianos asked how defendant would get witnesses, defendant said that if he needed them, "I'll bring them in. That's all I have to say. THE COURT: How would you get the witnesses into court? [¶] THE DEFENDANT: Advice of counsel, I wish to remain silent. [¶] THE COURT: I understand that. Do you have any idea how you would get the witnesses to come into court? [¶]... [¶] THE DEFENDANT: My advice as counsel, I don't want to answer any more questions, sir."
Eventually, after defendant again said he did not want to answer questions, the following took place:
"THE COURT: Do you understand that you would have to follow through the same rules that an attorney would follow to be able to procure witnesses, and if you were not aware of those rules and because of that the witnesses were not available, that you may lose a case you might otherwise win?
"You understand that?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
"THE COURT: Okay. All right. I'm going to go ahead, Mr. Weber, and find Judge Agbayani found you competent to represent yourself in pro per at the last trial. I think you are capable. It's a constitutional right. I think you're capable. It may or may not be a wise choice, but I think you're capable and competent of doing that. So public defender's office has been relieved. I'll make the finding that you can represent yourself in pro per.
"THE DEFENDANT: Once again, I refuse to use the word represent --
"THE COURT: I think it's also very important for the record to indicate that previously there were 1368 proceedings and in those proceedings [defendant] was found competent. So I think you're competent to waive or give up your right to have an attorney, and you're competent to exercise your constitutional right to represent yourself."
After defendant said he would file a counterclaim, and the prosecutorstated she was "not comfortable" that an adequate Faretta waiver was made, Judge Vlavianos partly stated: "The only [real] standard of competence for Faretta purposes is that he is competent to understand the proceedings. It's the same standard as 1368. He was found competent under 1368. I think he understands the [role] of attorney. So he does have the constitutional right to represent himself."
That day, July 16, 2008, defendant filed his counterclaim, as well as motions objecting to the flag and to the prosecutor's status, requiring prosecution witnesses to post bonds, and other frivolous matters. Some of these documents were signed "Joseph, surname Weber/Sui Juris."
At a hearing on July 23, 2008, defendant objected to the flag in the courtroom and "to not being charged with my true and correct name, " and moved to dismiss the action.
The next day, defendant filed an objection to "fraudulent" court minutes, and claimed to reject the "offer" to represent "the noticed artificial person JOSEPH WEBER. Furthermore, I, supra, do not 'Consent' to this proceeding." He signed this document "Joseph, Weber/Sui Juris." Also on July 24, 2008, defendant filed a list of "live flesh and blood men" who were to be his witnesses.
On July 28, 2008, defendant challenged the credentials of the prosecutor, objected to the flag, and moved to dismiss for delay. When Judge Garber asked if defendant was willing to admit to the prior battery conviction, defendant first said: "That's fine. I spit in her face. She attacked me, and I spit in her face." But then he refused to admit the conviction, stating, "I object to all of this." Defendant stated he had four available witnesses, and had not shown the People his evidence. He moved to dismiss because Smith was "lying through his teeth... and he's now back on to drugs." He reiterated prior motions and objections, which were denied or overruled.
On July 29, 2008, the jury trial began before Judge Garber. At various times at the trial, defendant made frivolous objections to the flag in the courtroom, the power of the court, the authority of the prosecutor, and so forth. As stated above, defendant was acquitted of the counts involving threatening Smith and violating the restraining order, but convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition.
B. Contentions on Appeal and Analysis
Defendant contends that he lacked competence to waive counsel, he never actually wanted to waive counsel, and the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry to insure his waiver was knowing and voluntary. We disagree.
1. Competency to Waive Counsel
In related claims, defendant contends that he was not competent to waive counsel. In part he points to the frivolous objections he made throughout the proceedings to show that there was a serious question about his mental state. He also contends the trial court applied the wrong standard to determine competency. He also contends the trial degenerated into a "spectacle." We conclude Judge Vlavianos properly found defendant competent to waive counsel, and disagree that the trial proceedings before Judge Garber became a spectacle or showed that defendant was, in fact, incompetent to proceed without counsel.
Judge Vlavianos correctly stated that the same standard of competency used at the competency hearing applied to the competency to waive counsel. The competency defendant needed was the competency to waive the right to counsel, and to determine this, a trial court applies the same standard that it uses to determine if a defendant is competent to stand trial. (Godinez v. Moran (1993) 509 U.S. 389, 399-401 [125 L.Ed.2d 321, 332-333] (Godinez).) The question is whether the defendant "has 'sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding' and has 'a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.' " (Godinez, supra, 509 U.S. at pp. 391, 396 [125 L.Ed.2d at pp. 327, 330], quoting Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 402 [4 L.Ed.2d 824, 825] (Dusky); see People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 732 (Welch).)
The evidence at the competency hearing indicates that defendant's bizarre motions and objections were not the result of delusions, but were intentional efforts to thwart the proceedings. Both of the psychiatrists who examined defendant concluded he was malingering. The fact he continued to make frivolous objections and motions does not mean that his mental condition deteriorated after the competency finding, it simply shows that defendant persisted in his efforts to thwart the proceedings. And, "once a defendant has been found to be competent, even bizarre statements and actions are not enough to require a further inquiry." (People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 220.)
Defendant relies on a United States Supreme Court case, Indiana v. Edwards (2008) 554 U.S. 164 [171 L.Ed.2d 345] (Edwards). He contends that Edwards established a different standard for evaluating competency to waive counsel. He also contends that Edwards mandates considerations of the "dignity" of the proceedings, and argues the proceedings following the Faretta hearing were farcical, and "made a spectacle of the trial." We disagree.
Edwards involved a "gray area" defendant, that is, a defendant who "falls in a gray area between Dusky's minimal constitutional requirement that measures a defendant's ability to stand trial and a somewhat higher standard that measures mental fitness for another legal purpose." (Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 172 [171 L.Ed.2d at p. 354].) Edwards held that "the Constitution permits judges to take realistic account of the particular defendant's mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so. That is to say, the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under Dusky but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves." (Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 177-178 [171 L.Ed.2d at p. 357].)
Edwards distinguished Godinez in part because Godinez held a state could permit a "gray area" defendant to represent himself; Edwards did not directly hold that a state must deny a gray-area defendant self-representation. (Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 173-174 [171 L.Ed.2d at p. 355].)
In People v. Taylor (2009) 47 Cal.4th 850 (Taylor), the California Supreme Court held that Edwards does not compel a state to adopt a different standard of competency for self-representation than the standard of competency used to determine if a defendant may stand trial while represented by counsel. After reviewing the development of California and federal rules regarding competency, Taylor concluded:
"The court in Edwards did not hold, contra to Godinez, that due process mandates a higher standard of mental competence for self-representation than for trial with counsel. The Edwards court held only that states may, without running afoul of Faretta, impose a higher standard, a result at which Godinez had hinted by its reference to possibly 'more elaborate' state standards. (Godinez, supra, 509 U.S. at p. 402.) 'In light of Edwards, it is clear... that we are free to adopt for mentally ill or mentally incapacitated defendants who wish to represent themselves at trial a competency standard that differs from the standard for determining whether such a defendant is competent to stand trial. It is equally clear, however, that Edwards does not mandate the application of such a dual standard of competency for mentally ill defendants. In other words, Edwards did not alter the principle that the federal constitution is not violated when a trial court permits a mentally ill defendant to represent himself at trial, even if he lacks the mental capacity to conduct the trial proceedings himself, if he is competent to stand trial and his waiver of counsel is voluntary, knowing and intelligent.' (State v. Connor (Conn. 2009) 973 A.2d 627, 650.) Edwards thus does not support a claim of federal constitutional error in a case like the present one, in which defendant's request to represent himself was granted." (Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 877-878.)
The California Supreme Court also rejected the claim that a trial court should have exercised discretion to apply a different standard "because, at the time of defendant's trial, state law provided the trial court with no test of mental competence to apply other than the Dusky standard of competence to stand trial (see Dusky v. United States, supra, 362 U.S. 402), under which defendant had already been found competent." (Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 879.)
Here, as in Taylor, the trial court permitted defendant to represent himself, and did so by applying the correct legal standard. "In that circumstance, the court did not err in relying on federal and state case law equating competence for self-representation with competence to stand trial." (Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 867.)[5]
Furthermore, the psychiatric evaluations in the record show that defendant does not suffer from any mental illness, that is, he is not a "gray area" defendant as that term was used in Edwards. The diagnoses merely showed that he had or probably had a narcissistic personality disorder. Defendant does not argue that equates to a mental illness.
In this connection, appellate counsel asserts that defendant thought he was in a military courtroom but the trial court, Judge Garber, improperly disregarded his delusions. We disagree. Defendant's objections about the fringe on the flag and other frivolous points were designed to derail the proceedings, they did not show that defendant actually believed he was being court-martialed.
Edwards in part observed that "a right of self-representation at trial will not 'affirm the dignity' of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel" and "the spectacle that could well result from his self-representation at trial is at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling." (Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 176 [171 L.Ed.2d at pp. 356-357].) Appellate counsel contends defendant's dignity was impugned and the trial became a "spectacle, " as contemplated by Edwards, and he accuses Judge Garber of poking fun at defendant.
Assuming that this passage of Edwards has application in a case, such as this one, not involving a mentally ill defendant, we reject defendant's contention.
Defendant's dignity was not impugned, it was honored by the order granting his Faretta request: "Respect for the dignity and autonomy of the individual is a value universally celebrated in free societies and uniformly repressed in totalitarian and authoritarian societies. Out of fidelity to that value defendant's choice [to waive counsel] must be honored even if he opts foolishly to go to hell in a handbasket. At least, if the worst happens, he can descend to the netherworld with his head held high. It's called, 'Doing It My Way.' " (People v. Nauton (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 976, 981 see People v. Truman (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1816, 1825.)
Instead, it was defendant's frivolous objections and motions that impaired the dignity of the proceedings. Defendant made an opening statement, cross-examined witnesses, objected to evidence and made a closing statement. Although he did not perform with the skill of an attorney, that is not required, and the trial was not turned into a "spectacle." In this connection, recall that the record shows the jury took the case seriously, as evidenced by its acquittals on two counts.
Appellate counsel points to three comments to support his claim that the court "could not avoid making fun of [defendant] in front of the jury." In fairness to Judge Garber, who exercised exemplary patience with defendant throughout the trial, we address each of these points separately.
During jury selection, after Judge Garber told the prospective jurors the nature of the charges and mentioned that defendant was "representing" himself, defendant objected and stated he took "offense" to that term and stated he was "going to defend myself, " not "represent myself, sir." Judge Garber told the prospective jurors about hardships, "to see if anyone is unable to serve as a -- I need to talk you out of it before we get into it. Not yet. I've never seen so many people so eager to get out of here." We do not read this passage as a slap at defendant or at his decision to defend himself, as does appellate counsel. The transcript suggests that one or more prospective jurors raised their hands in the middle of the judge's statement about hardships. Jury selection can be protracted and difficult, and judges commonly inject some levity into such proceedings.
Appellate counsel cites a second instance that he states took place in the middle of trial, but he provides no record citation for this comment, therefore the point is forfeited. (See City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16.) In any event, as described by appellate counsel, defendant stated he was confused, and Judge Garber replied, " 'I know you are.' " On a cold transcript we do not know the tone with which this comment was delivered, and, in any event, it is not the sort of comment that would transform a trial into a spectacle.
Finally, appellate counsel points to a passage during defendant's cross-examination of Deputy Prieto, the People's firearms expert. Defendant asked if the deputy had a "performance bond, " and the following took place:
"THE COURT: Do you have a performance bond? Do you have it?
"[Defendant]: Do you have a performance bond?
"THE COURT: Do you have it in your hand?
"THE WITNESS: No.
"[Defendant]: Funny. I find no humor in that, sir.
"THE COURT: I do. What does that have to do with anything? Of course he doesn't have a performance bond."
Defendant then explained he wanted show the law required the deputy to have a bond. The passage does not reveal the tone and possible gestures that took place, but even assuming Judge Garber teased some humor out of an absurd line of inquiry, that did not convert the trial into a spectacle.
Accordingly, we reject defendant's contention that Judge Vlavianos applied the wrong standard to determine his competency to waive counsel, and we reject his subsidiary contentions that Judge Garber allowed or caused the trial to become a spectacle because of defendant's mental incompetence.
2. Desire to Waive Counsel
Defendant contends he did notwant to represent himself. We disagree with this contention.
At the outset of the Faretta hearing, the public defender in part stated: "[Defendant] has made it abundantly clear to me that he does not want representation. He, specifically, does not want public defender representation." After the public defender mentioned defendant's options of hiring counsel or proceeding without counsel, Judge Vlavianos observed that Judge Agbayani had found defendant competent to represent himself. At this point, defendant interrupted:
"THE DEFENDANT: Excuse me. I take offense to you saying represent myself.
"THE COURT: I hear you.
"THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to defend myself. To represent myself is the wrong term to use."
After Judge Vlavianos asked defendant to review the Faretta waiver form, defendant asked whether the court was "trying to force me to waive my rights to privacy and the right to defend myself against my will and over my objections?" Thus, he showed his understanding that he had a right to "defend" himself, which he proceeded to exercise.
Defendant points to the rule that "[c]ourts must indulge every reasonable inference against waiver of the right to counsel." (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 20.) Defendant contends that the trial court should have conducted a Marsden[6] hearing to explore the adequacy of the public defender's representation, but instead "incorrectly suggested to [defendant] that proceeding in pro per was his only remaining option" and defendant, "perhaps in uninformed resignation, told the court that he was going to defend himself."
This is not a plausible reading of the record. As we have indicated, defendant bristled at various points when reference was made to defendant representing himself, as he drew some distinction between representing himself and defending himself. But other than that quibble, defendant stated clearly that he wanted to proceed without an attorney. Nothing at the Faretta hearing, or at trial, indicates defendant's desire to proceed without counsel had anything to do with the quality of services provided by the public defender. Accordingly, the trial court properly treated defendant's request as a Faretta motion, not a Marsden motion.
3. Knowing and Voluntary Waiver
Defendant contends Judge Vlavianos did not complete the standard Faretta admonishments, and therefore he did not knowingly waive counsel. We agree the standard Faretta admonishments were not completed, but disagree with the conclusion that defendant did not knowingly waive counsel. We conclude he acted with knowledge of the basic risks of self-representation and chose to accept them.
In addition to finding a defendant competent, a trial court must ensure that the defendant realizes " 'the probable risks and consequences of self-representation[.]' " (People v. Nauton, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 979.) Generally, a defendant should be told that "self-representation is almost always unwise and that the defense he conducts might be to his detriment; he will have to follow the same rules that govern attorneys; the prosecution will be represented by experienced, professional counsel who will have a significant advantage over him in terms of skill, training, education, experience, and ability; the court may terminate his right to represent himself if he engages in disruptive conduct; and he will lose the right to appeal his case on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. [Citation.] In addition, he should also be told he will receive no help or special treatment from the court and that he does not have a right to standby, advisory, or co-counsel." (People v. Phillips (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 422, 428.)
There are standard scripts for judges to use in taking Faretta waivers, as well as standard Faretta waiver forms. (See People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 708-709 (Blair); Cal. Judges Benchguide: Right to Counsel Issues (CJER 2010) §§ 54.37-54.38, pp. 54-40 to 54-48 (Right to Counsel Issues).)
However, although there are standard scripts and although courts have emphasized the importance of thoroughly admonishing a defendant before accepting a Faretta waiver, there is no required form of waiver: "The requirements for a valid waiver of the right to counsel are (1) a determination that the accused is competent to waive the right, i.e., he or she has the mental capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him or her; and (2) a finding that the waiver is knowing and voluntary, i.e., the accused understands the significance and consequences of the decision and makes it without coercion." (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 139.) "No particular form of words, however, is required in admonishing a defendant who seeks to forgo the right to counsel and engage in self-representation. ' "The test of a valid waiver of counsel is not whether specific warnings or advisements were given but whether the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant understood the disadvantages of self-representation, including the risks and complexities of the particular case." ' " (Id. at p. 140.)
"Thus, '[a]s long as the record as a whole shows that the defendant understood the dangers of self-representation, no particular form of warning is required.' [Citations.] [¶] On appeal, we independently examine the entire record to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel." (People v. Burgener (2009) 46 Cal.4th 231, 240-241 (Burgener); see People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 453; People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1224-1225.)
The failure to give a particular set of advisements does not, of itself, show that a Faretta waiver was inadequate. Instead, "[t]he burden is on appellant to demonstrate that he did not intelligently and knowingly waive his right to counsel.... [T]his burden is not satisfied by simply pointing out that certain advisements were not given." (People v. Truman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1824; see People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 547 (Sullivan); People v. Mellor (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 32, 37.) Instead, the purpose of standardized advisements is prophylactic, "to ensure a clear record of a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel, not to create a threshold of competency to waive counsel." (People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1071.)
Although no particular warnings are required, "before a defendant may be allowed to proceed pro se, he must be warned specifically of the hazards ahead." (Iowa v. Tovar (2004) 541 U.S. 77, 88-89 [158 L.Ed.2d 209, 220].) "If the trial court's warnings communicate powerfully to the defendant the 'disadvantages of proceeding pro se, ' that is all 'Faretta requires.' [Citation.] Our waiver inquiry 'must be pragmatic, ' and focused upon 'the status of the defendant's knowledge and understanding at the time of the purported waiver.' [Citation.] 'The requirement is met if the record establishes the defendant is literate and understanding and has voluntarily exercised the choice of representing himself.' [Citation.] The 'information a defendant must have to waive counsel intelligently will "depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case" [citation].' " (Sullivan, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 546.)
Defendant contends the court did not advise him of "the 'possible pitfalls' or 'consequences' of self-representation." (Burgener, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 241.) Although defendant interrupted repeatedly, and refused to answer or gave hostile answers to standard questions posed by Judge Vlavianos, defendant stated on the record that he understood he would be held to the same standards as an attorney, and that because of his lack of legal training he could lose a case he might otherwise have won. In our view, those two points adequately brought home to defendant the essential dangers of self-representation. Further, Judge Vlavianos placed on the record the additional fact that defendant had recently been granted his Faretta rights in another case. In our view, the record "'suggests no confusion on defendant's part' regarding the 'risks of self-representation, or the complexities of his case, much less that his election to represent himself was other than voluntary.'" (Sullivan, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 553.)
Whenever Judge Vlavianos tried to give defendant more information about the risks of self-representation, defendant refused to listen, apparently because of his personal views about the legal system. That does not mean defendant did not understand the essential risks of self-representation.
Defendant states the trial court "inexplicably" relied on the fact that Judge Agbayani had granted his Faretta motion in another recent case. This tended to show defendant knew the risks of self-representation and knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel. (Sullivan, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at pp. 552-553; People v. Jackson (1978) 88 Cal.App.3d 490, 497 ["Defendant's understanding of his right to counsel and his decision to represent himself were further demonstrated by the fact that he had represented himself in a prior criminal proceeding"], disapproved on another point by People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210; Right to Counsel Issues, supra, § 54.37, p. 54-41 [Faretta form asks about previous self-representation]; see also Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 703, 704, 707, 709 [noting Blair's prior self-representation].)
In part, defendant suggests that his behavior after the Faretta hearing shows he lacked an understanding of the risks of self-representation, or should have caused the trial court to terminate his right to self-representation. A trial court may revoke self-representation if the defendant engages in disruptive or obstructionist behavior. (See People v. Carson (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1, 8-12; Welch, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 734-735.) But a trial court is not compelled to revoke self-representation in such cases. "The trial court possesses much discretion when it comes to terminating a defendant's right to self-representation and the exercise of that discretion 'will not be disturbed in the absence of a strong showing of clear abuse.' [Citations.]" (Welch, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 735.) The fact a defendant does a bad job, or even fails to contest the case, is not a basis to revoke self-representation. (See People v. Carson, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 8 [quoting Faretta, " 'whatever else may or may not be open to him on appeal, a defendant who elects to represent himself cannot thereafter complain' " about the quality of his defense]; People v. Parento (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1378, 1381-1382 [self-represented defendant refused to participate at trial, no error].) Further, although defendant made many frivolous objections, the record does not show that he was out of control, engaged in behavior that impaired the orderly progress of the trial, or did anything to justify terminating self-representation. Indeed, the two acquittals show that defendant did a reasonably good job.
Thus, we conclude that neither the trial court's inability to complete the standard Faretta admonishments, nor defendant's subsequent behavior, shows that defendant did not understand what he was doing when he waived the right to counsel. Instead, the record shows he wanted to waive counsel, understood the essential risks of doing so, and chose to do so.
Judge Vlavianos did all that reasonably could be expected, faced with a defendant who insists on representing himself, but thwarts efforts to complete standard Faretta admonishments. Judge Vlavianos did not err by honoring defendant's choice to waive counsel, and Judge Garber did not err by failing to revoke defendant's right to proceed without counsel.
II. Counsel at Sentencing
In two related contentions, defendant contends Judge Garber's failure to appoint counsel at sentencing was prejudicial error, requiring a new sentencing hearing. He couches this as a federal error, relying on Robinson v. Ignacio (9th Cir. 2004) 360 F.3d 1044, and as an abuse of discretion under state law, relying on cases such as People v. Ngaue (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1115. However, in those cases, there were explicit requests for counsel at sentencing. (Robinson v. Ignacio, supra, 360 F.3d at p. 1048; People v. Ngaue, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1122-1123.) We reject defendant's contention because he made no unequivocal request for counsel in this case.
At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, defendant asked for a "JAG" or Judge Advocate General, and again referenced the flag in the courtroom. Later during the hearing, he stated the trial court had not allowed him to have his "counsel" present, referring to "Richard Gallegos, my uncle[.]" Richard Gallegos had appeared with defendant during one of the competency evaluations, and testified at trial as defendant's firearms expert. Defendant had asked that his uncle be allowed to assist him at the counsel table during trial, and defendant had also told the probation officer that his uncle was doing legal research for him. The trial court proceeded with the sentencing hearing without appointing counsel for defendant.
A request to revokein propria persona status and have an attorney appointed is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (People v. Lawrence (2009) 46 Cal.4th 186, 192.) However, such a request must be unequivocal, just as a request to waive counsel must be unequivocal. (Id. at p. 193.)
As stated in a case involving the converse situation of a request to waive counsel, "Faretta motions must be both timely and unequivocal. Otherwise, defendants could plant reversible error in the record. [Citations.] Equivocation of the right of self-representation may occur where the defendant tries to manipulate the proceedings by switching between requests for counsel and for self-representation, or where such actions are the product of whim or frustration." (People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1002.)
Defendant did not make an unequivocal request for counsel, and it was evident that he had been trying to manipulate the proceedings from the beginning. His request for a "JAG" at sentencing was a further iteration of his frivolous contention that the yellow fringe on the flag meant that he was being tried in a military courtroom. His request that his "uncle" who was not an attorney be allowed to represent him was also frivolous.
Defendant argues that even if he was equivocal as to who he wanted to help him at sentencing, he articulated that he wanted someone to help him. We disagree. The sentencing transcript shows he never asked for an attorney. As shown by his abilities during the trial -- in which he obtained acquittals on two counts -- and by the competency reports, defendant had the knowledge and ability to say, "I want an attorney to help me now" if that was what he wanted.
We conclude that because defendant did not make an unequivocal request for counsel, the trial court did not err by proceeding with the sentencing hearing.
III. Upper-Term Sentencing
Defendant contends the trial court improperly imposed an upper-term sentence. He contends the trial court relied on facts not found true by the jury, and also that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on improper facts.
At the beginning of the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor had offered defendant misdemeanor probation if he admitted either the firearm or ammunition count, but defendant rejected that offer. After the trial, the People filed a memorandum stating that, although a midterm sentence of two years was justified, the People would be satisfied with the lower term of 16 months in state prison.
The probation officer recommended probation, in part noting defendant's honorable military service.
Defendant made a nearly eight-page statement at sentencing, most of which consisted of irrelevant points similar to the ones raised throughout the proceedings, attacks on the trial court judge, and defiance of the proceedings. However, he also referred to his good military service.
The trial court denied probation because defendant would not comply with any judgment of the court, therefore there was no basis to grant probation. The trial court imposed the upper term of three years for possession of a firearm, and a concurrent midterm of two years for possession of ammunition. The trial court stated as follows:
"So looking at the facts of this case, I've heard the trial. The defendant was arrested and convicted of a driving under the influence of alcohol [(DUI)] while this case was pending. There is continuing animosity between the defendant, the victim, and the witness in this case. We have a firearm involved.
"THE DEFENDANT: No, there is not.
"THE COURT: A dangerous situation. There is absolutely no remorse whatsoever.
"So, for Count 4, possession of a firearm --
"THE DEFENDANT: It's not true, sir.
"THE COURT: -- I feel that the appropriate term is the upper term of three years state prison.
"For the possession of ammunition, in Count 3, I think that the appropriate term is the [midterm] of two years state prison. That will run concurrently with Count 4."
Defendant contends the trial court improperly imposed the upper term based on facts not found true by the jury, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights as articulated in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [166 L.Ed.2d 856] and related cases. We reject this claim. Defendant committed his crimes and was sentenced after March 30, 2007, when the Determinate Sentencing Law was amended to eliminate the presumption that the middle term should be imposed, therefore the sentence did not violate defendant's federal constitutional rights. (See People v. Wilson (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 988, 991-992.)
The California Supreme Court has described a trial court's discretion under current law as follows: "Even with the broad discretion afforded a trial court under the amended sentencing scheme, its sentencing decision will be subject to review for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] The trial court's sentencing discretion must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary and capricious, that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the law, and that is based upon an 'individualized consideration of the offense, the offender, and the public interest.' [Citation.] As under the former scheme, a trial court will abuse its discretion under the amended scheme if it relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision." (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 (Sandoval).) "[A] trial court is free to base an upper term sentence upon any aggravating circumstance that the court deems significant, subject to specific prohibitions. [Citations.] The court's discretion to identify aggravating circumstances is otherwise limited only by the requirement that they be 'reasonably related to the decision being made.' " (Id. at p. 848.)
Defendant acknowledges the trial court's broad discretion to select a determinate sentence, post-Sandoval, but contends the trial court abused its discretion in this case. He parses the trial court's ruling finely and argues the trial court could not rely on the firearm, because that was an element of the offense, could not rely on the DUI conviction because it occurred after he committed these offenses, and could not rely on the lack of remorse because he contested guilt.
Assuming for purposes of argument that we accepted defendant's attacks on the three specific reasons described above, the trial court relied on a fourth reason that adequately supports the upper term: The threat posed by defendant's continuing animosity towards Smith and his former wife.[7]
A single aggravating factor will support an upper-term sentence. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 728, 732.)
In addition to the enumerated aggravating circumstances, a trial court may base its sentencing decision on "additional criteria reasonably related to the decision being made. Any such additional criteria must be stated on the record by the sentencing judge." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.408(a); see People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 817.) Contrary to defendant's view, the trial court may consider a fact as aggravating even though the jury acquitted the defendant of charges based on that fact, and the fact need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Towne (2008) 44 Cal.4th 63, 83-89.)
Therefore, the trial court could consider the evidence of defendant's violations of the restraining order and threat to hurt Smith in concluding, "There is continuing animosity between the defendant, the victim, and the witness in this case" which created a "dangerous situation."
The record supports the trial court's implicit view that defendant had no intention of abiding by societal norms. He displayed contempt for legal authority throughout these legal proceedings. He knew he could not possess ammunition, but ignored that prohibition. The jury rejected his claim that the revolver he concededly possessed was a rusted memento. Despite the acquittals, the trial court could conclude defendant repeatedly violated the restraining order and threatened Smith. Based on defendant's persistent flouting of the law, the trial court could rationally conclude the restraining order would not protect Smith and defendant's former wife, and therefore an upper-term sentence was appropriate.
The trial court's decision was "not arbitrary and capricious, " was "consistent with the letter and spirit of the law, " and was "based upon an 'individualized consideration of the offense, the offender, and the public interest.' " (Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 847.) Therefore, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.
Contrary to defendant's view, the fact the trial court imposed a sentence higher than had been sought by the People, before and after trial, does not show an abuse of discretion. The pretrial offer was not accepted and therefore was irrelevant, and although the People's posttrial recommendation was relevant to the sentencing determination, it did not limit the trial court's discretion.
IV. Custody Credits
In our original opinion we deemed defendant to have raised the issue whether amendments to Penal Code section 4019, effective January 25, 2010, applied retroactively to entitle him to additional presentence credits. They do not. (Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th 314.)
The judgment is affirmed.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
The Goo Goo Dolls are back! Deal with it....
Brent Black / www.criticaljazz.com
Can a hard charging jazz critic find true inner happiness reviewing what many are calling the next wave of corporate rock? Yes...
"Corporate rock" is an archaic term applied to a plethora of bands that all popped at the same time and include Boston, Journey, REO Speedwagon and Foreigner. That was then and this is now. The Goo Goo Dolls are older, wiser and poised to reclaim their rightful place as something more than a singles band with an album that embraces artistic growth and a more grounded approach to collaborative song writing.
Let's talk hits..."Rebel Beat" along with "Come To Me" and "Bringing On The Night" are just three gems that leap to mind. Long time fans will find plenty to cheer about while potential new fans will be introduced to a band that has mastered their evolution. Utilizing four different producers with the most notable in Rob Cavallo has allowed the band to explore a more textured approach to their craft and in doing so the commercial potential for literally half the release is unlimited. Commercial is not bad. Commercial pays the bills. There is nothing noble in being a broke ass musician playing bad clubs and state fairs in a half hearted attempt to recapture past glory while paying the rent.
Magnetic is a special release, not just for the band but for pop music fans you might find in Home Depot looking for a length of rope and rickety stool should they be treated to one more Justin Bieber record. This is a magnificent pop record in every possible sense of the word.
Tracks: Rebel Beat; When The World Breaks Your Heart; Slow It Down; Caught In The Storm; Come To Me; Your Heart; Bringing On The Light; More Of You; BulletProofAngel; Last Hot Night; Happiest Of Days; Keep The Car Running.


text:
(1 - 16 from 21
Twitter Profile: Oscar Pistorius (OscarPistorius)
Location: ÜT: 46.2961871,13.0985256
Oscar Pistorius: The 'Broke And Broken' Olympian - NDTV.com
At the 2012 London Olympics, before 80000 roaring fans and a constellation of camera flashes, it took Oscar Pistorius 45.44 seconds to ...
Twitter Profile: Oscar Pistorius (OscarTrial)
Location: Pretoria, South Africa / Oscar Pistorius has been granted bail and now awaiting trial. Tweets are retweets of journailsts as well as analysis. Any questions please tweet @OscarTrial.
Twitter Profile: Oscar Pistorius (pistoriusfans)
Location: South Africa / We aggregate all of the news stories from around the web about Oscar Pistorius. We are not affiliated with Oscar Pistorius... We are just huge fans!
Twitter Profile: Oscar Pistorius (@OscarPistorius) | Twitter
3998 tweets • 535 photos/videos • 364K followers. Check out the latest Tweets from Oscar Pistorius (@OscarPistorius)
pinterest.com: oscar pistorius
0 Pins • 0 Followers
Oscar Pistorius Sentenced to 5 Years in Prison - Crime & Courts,...
The judge cited
oscar pistorius on News24
oscar pistorius articles on News24
Oscar Pistorius Case: Dramatic Details Emerge on Eve of Blade...
The blade runner
Oscar Pistorius | FloTrack
Oscar Pistorius | Who's Who SA
Oscar Pistorius is a South African Paralympic runner. In 2007, he broke his own 200m world record and 400m world record. He also became the first amputee to...
All web results to the name "Oscar Pistorius"
sorted by relevance / date


text:
Thread: Bulk Emails
10-08-2009, 09:29 PM #1Newbie
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Posts
- 6
Bulk Emails
Hi all , i am still beginner in this field , i just open a small company for advertising , beside i will make email adviertising campaign , so what i can do for it ??? i want to know the best way to send this bulk email , the number of emails what i have arround 500000 emails . i need a help
10-08-2009, 10:17 PM #2Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Posts
- 529
That would most likely get you blacklisted on any email spam filter in the world...
10-08-2009, 10:22 PM #3Disabled
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- /home
- Posts
- 248
I pity the host who falls for this. If there is one.
10-08-2009, 10:25 PM #4WHT Content Curator
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Posts
- 8,945
You will most likely want to advertise here on WHT or other places (non-bulk mail), some of which will be free of charge (e.g. offers forums), and other optional ways costing money (e.g. banner advertisements).
Good luck!
10-08-2009, 10:26 PM #5Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Posts
- 529
10-09-2009, 01:40 AM #6Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Posts
- 86
Sending out that many e-mails will probably get the host's IP blacklisted and result in hundreds of complaints. I don't think most of the hosts out there would allow this.Rock Solid Shared, Reseller and VPS Solutions
Cpanel/WHM, Fantastico de Luxe, Installatron, RVSkin, RVSiteBuilder, 24/7 Support
FFMPEG, ImageMagick, PHP5, Ruby On Rails, Subversion, Trac, PDO, Zend
DashingHost - Fast (dashing) Web Hosting
10-09-2009, 09:11 AM #7Newbie
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Posts
- 23
I don't recommend sending such a volume of e-mails. When you do find a host be sure to check their AUP to make sure you won't be in violation. Also check their policies because if you do violate their AUP you may not get your money back .
10-09-2009, 09:29 AM #8Support Facility
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,324
I don't think so that any of the hosting provider will allow you to do this on their server.Support Facility | 24/7 web hosting technical support services
Technical support | Server management | Data migration
Technical Articles
Similar Threads
Need a VPS to send out BULK EMAILSBy callmybluff in forum VPS HostingReplies: 16Last Post: 07-10-2009, 09:48 AM
Deleting Emails in BulkBy safari in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 8Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:55 AM
sending bulk emailsBy andy106 in forum VPS HostingReplies: 8Last Post: 05-23-2008, 02:09 PM
Why are emails going to BULK box - yahooBy GIGANET in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 4Last Post: 10-01-2005, 01:11 PM


text:
Brazil duo Flow & Zeo, the experienced and well placed on the worldwide market project with releases on Dear Deer, Electronique NU, Warung, Nervous Records and not less than incredible touring all over the world – these talents are firstly connected with Monotonik with their music output.
'Essence' gives us a dozen of freshness – the vocal track on the edge of deep house and progressive, rich on melodies, hypnotic sounds and the live atmosphere all-around.
Spanish rising stat Piem is giving his banging touch onto his remix, heavy bass & drum set with a tickling percussion, so saying a dancefloor version of the original.
Also Brazil producer, one of the brightest sound-wise, where the line of successful releases on world's biggest imprints like Suara, Stil Vor Talent, Noir Music, is making his unique remake of 'Essence' – playing around the melodica world.
From us to say – it's something we release and we are very proud of having all these artists appearing on the label and would appreciate your support on this release as we always do.
- Release date: 2016-10-17
- Label: Monotonik Records
- Genre: Progressive House
- Quality: 320kbps / 44.1kHz / Full Stereo


text:
5172 Green Meadow Road, Kalamazoo 49009
See more homes for sale in Kalamazoo, MI
This property has been Sold!
11/23/2015 at $84,000
Seller will pay the first 3 months of condo association fees with acceptable offer. Must see this uncommonly large 1024 ft condo in impeccable condition located in desirable Leisure Time Condominums. Pride of ownership is evident in this corner unit with more space than most and a full partially finished basement with bath and laundry. The furnace was new in 2013 and the water heater 2011 along with brand new garbage disposal. 1 car garage and bright sunny 3 season room. The association fees include water, sewer, trash, recycling, exterior maintenance, lawn care and snow removal. Pets are allowed. Don't miss out on this fantastic and affordable unit, leave your worries behind and enjoy Leisure Time Living! Call today for a private showing.
Property Information
- Status
- Sold
- Address
- 5172 Green Meadow Road
- City
- Kalamazoo
- Zip
- 49009
- County
- Kalamazoo
- Township
- Oshtemo
- Garage Desc.
- 1, Detached
- Water
- Public
- Sewer
- Public
- Year Built
- 1986
- Taxes
- $1
Rooms and Land
- Basement
- Full Basement
- Cooling
- Central
- Heating
- Forced Air, Natural Gas
- Lot Dimensions
- condo
- Exterior Materials
- Aluminum
- Exterior Features
- 3 Season Room
Listing Video for 5172 Green Meadow Road, Kalamazoo MI 49009
Mortgage Calculator
Listing Broker
Listing Courtesy of Berkshire Hathaway Homeservices Michigan Real Esta
Office Address 5839 Oakland Drive
Listing Agent Margi Burnham
Listings last updated: . Some properties that appear for sale on this web site may subsequently have been sold and may no longer be available.
Our Michigan real estate agents can answer all of your questions about 5172 Green Meadow Road, Kalamazoo MI 49009. Real Estate One, Max Broock Realtors, and J&J Realtors are part of the Real Estate One Family of Companies and dominate the Kalamazoo, Michigan real estate market. To sell or buy a home in Kalamazoo, Michigan, contact our real estate agents as we know the Kalamazoo, Michigan real estate market better than anyone with over 100 years of experience in Kalamazoo, Michigan real estate for sale.
The data relating to real estate for sale on this web site appears in part from the IDX programs of our Multiple Listing Services. Real Estate listings held by brokerage firms other than Real Estate One includes the name and address of the listing broker where available.
IDX information is provided exclusively for consumers personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing.
All information deemed materially reliable but not guaranteed. Interested parties are encouraged to verify all information. Copyright© 2016 MichRIC LLC, All rights reserved.


text:
The Quarry Gardens- October 21, 9AM
The Quarry Gardens- October 21, 9AM
from 10.00
Journey to Schuyler as we witness the reclamation of nature from the grips of industry. Once home to a piece of the world's capital of soapstone production, the Quarry Gardens are being regenerated as a 40 acre public garden site focused on native plants amongst a 400 acre conservation easement. Enjoy a tour of the site while we learn of the history of the soapstone industry and the efforts to assist the natural restoration of the habitat. Bring lunch and plenty of water. Payment is due at time of registration.
Add To Cart


text: The place is much cleaner and neater than most local restaurants. Food is rather good, the menu is attractive and affordable (wine list is another story, but that's always not cheap). The vibe is pleasant and dynamic. Recommend for a change for a night out in Kata. Tried lasagna (traditional), side of blue cheese salad (excellent), and the foe-gras salad... More


text:
Education related trusted resources.
Education holds central place in our lives as quality education alone can guarantee we will reach the goals set for ourselves in life.
Whether you are a parent of small kids concerned about their development or a busy executive looking for avenues to further your career, you must visit trust directory to get to authentic sources of information on all things educational in nature as well as distant learning sources.
India Education News Wikipedia
India Education News Portal Wikipedia Latest Exam Alerts 2013, Scholarships, Student Jobs, Current Affairs, Sarkari Naukri Recruitment 2013-2014, KUK,HBSE, GJU, CCS HAU, CDLU, HPSC, TET,Date-sheet,...
iamrahulsethi Apr 20, 2013 Clicks: 0 Comments
Thư viện tài liệu, báo cáo, luận văn
Updatebook.vn là thư viện tài liệu, luận văn, báo cáo ebook. Nơi bạn có thể tìm thấy những tài liệu bổ ích cho việc làm tiểu luận, luận văn, đồ án, bài tập lớn, nghiên cứu khoa học dành cho sinh...
Tinh Le Mar 28, 2013 Clicks: 3 Comments
Phoenix University
Phoenix University is famous for providing an excellent learning environment in tits campuses and has been ranked among top public universities in North America.Arizona University has established...
preetisoft2 Feb 11, 2013 Clicks: 2 Comments
Kênh Sinh Viên
Diễn đàn sinh viên Việt Nam online, cộng đồng sinh viên lớn nhất Việt Nam. Nơi học tập, giao lưu chia sẻ cho sinh viên, giới trẻ. Sẻ chia là niềm vui! Diễn đàn sinh viên Việt Nam online, cộng...
caoanh204 Feb 5, 2013 Clicks: 2 Comments
Hamisheonline Educational
Educational website for students and doctoral academic environment and provide educational facilities to the students and provide educational opportunities to students and transfer all information...
aminzayer Feb 1, 2013 Clicks: 2 Comments
Diễn đàn sinh viên hành chính
Diễn đàn Sinh viên Học viện Hành chính Quốc gia. Diễn đàn Sinh viên Học viện Hành chính Quốc gia. Diễn đàn Sinh viên Học viện Hành chính Quốc gia.Diễn đàn Sinh viên Học viện Hành chính Quốc gia....
quang9292 Dec 26, 2012 Clicks: 2 Comments
Online Masters Degree Programs
SchoolandUniversity.com provides free information about online and campus study program for your better careers, educational course choices with top schools, colleges, universities, community...
schoolanduniversity Sep 1, 2012 Clicks: 6 Comments
College and Institute Mangement Software
Schools are now making use of the software in order to teach students.Teachers get the chance to view every detail of the students related to their attendance, their performance in tests or exams,...
softwaresmartschool Aug 30, 2012 Clicks: 1 Comments
Education in India
The aim of Indiaedu is to provide all types of education related information and also to emerge as an active platform for students, teachers, education service providers and all those who really...
smitharay Aug 27, 2012 Clicks: 2 Comments
PupilBay - Homework Help
360 degree educational help for students to achieve their best grade and a better career such as education planning, educational resources, career investigation, homework help, writing services...
pupilbay Jun 29, 2012 Clicks: 5 Comments
Accounts Area
|Number of listings:
|Number of categories:
Popular categories
- Каталог Трастовых Сайтов — 99502
- Business & Finance — 51054
- Marketing — 29113
- Internet Marketing — 17362
- Computers — 17261
- Торговля — 16965
- Healthcare Industry — 15498
- Бизнес — 15036
- Directories — 14222
- Online Communities — 14140


text: kkk today i was downloading a springboard theme and while i was looking at it i noticed an MEEBO IM Icon cuz i really want a MSN messenger and i have to use meebo thru internet really annoying for me!!Please Register or Log in to view images so how can u download this MEEBO IM app. ????Please Register or Log in to view images


text:
Online Class
Modern Buttercream
with Joshua John Russell
Share a little about the materials, processes, and techniques used to create this cake buttercream, cake, cake boards, burlap, fondant What are you most proud of? I was proud that even though it was technically a casual style cake, it really did look elegant. I was surprised at how much I liked it. What advice would you give someone starting this project? Cover your bottom board with burlap first. I also used chocolate brown fondant flower centers in the middle of the burlap flowers. I purchased the flowers from Hobby Lobby. Don't deliver this cake until the very last minute possible if your venue is outside.


text:
5 properties found
Sort by:
- Lowest price first
- | Highest price first
£148,000 Offers in Region of
- 37
Offers in Region of £148,000
3 bedroom apartment for sale Aquiraz, Ceará
Excellent 87m2 apartment at Riviera Beach Place Golf Residence, one of the most 2nd residence valued condominiums in Brazil, with direct access to the beach, golf course, tennis court and other facilities. Enjoy the tropical lifestyle with a wonderful sunny weather almost all year round. More details ›
- 12
- 0
- 12
2 bedroom apartment for sale Ceará, Fortaleza
The luxury Catu Residence development, with 740 apartments of 2 and 3 bedrooms and duplex, is located at lovely Catu lagoon shores, surrounded by dunes and coco-trees. Prices from £72000. More details ›
- 16
- 0
- 16
2 bedroom apartment for sale Ceará, Beberibe
The Fountains is an exclusive private condominium with 30 Sea view apartments. This residential project is located in Praia das Fontes, Beberibe, CE, in a land with 3447 Sqm and 30 residential units, in a building with 2 levels and 4 blocks and divided by 7 plan options. More details ›
3 bedroom detached house for sale Ceará, Fortim
Fortim an exclusive sub-division of prime beach front just 1 hour from Fortaleza. Fantastic 3 bedroom detached holiday home sea views new build 151m2. 1 master suite a further 2 bedrooms More details ›
£10,000 From
From £10,000
Plot for sale Ceará, Fortim
Fortim an exclusive sub-division of prime beach front land just 1 hour from Fortaleza with planning permission and Building plans for a 3 bedroom property. More details ›
- 1


text:
What is the best secondary gun in akimbo?
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
im tryin to work out the best SECONDARY gun in akimbo i have used:
G18 AKIMBO M9 AKIMBO MAGNUM AKIMBO RAFFICA AKIMBO & PP2000 AKIMBO any suggestions what other ones i should try?


text:
While you're waiting for your game to download, why not play a quick game of Vector Defender online? Play Now!
Dark Asylum: Mystery Adventure
System Requirements
- Windows XP
- CPU: 1600 MHz
- DirectX: 9.0
- Memory: 1000 MB
Strange things are happening at the local asylum. And you are the detective assigned to figuring out what's going on. Do you have a rational mind and a strong heart? Then you just might survive to the end. If not, don't say we didn't warn you. Begin the descent into darkness today – if you dare!