CA Unpub Decisions

A.B. (Mother) seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code [1] section 366.26 as to her five-year-old daughter C.B. (Daughter) and three-year-old son C.B. (Son).[2] (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) On appeal, Mother contends (1) the court erred in terminating her services because there was insufficient evidence to show she was provided with reasonable services; (2) the court had discretion to continue the 18-month review hearing if no reasonable services had been provided; and (3) the court erred in finding it would be detrimental to return the children to her care on family maintenance services. We reject these contentions and deny Mother’s petition.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Parneal Hall of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1) [1] and two counts of attempted murder (§ 664/187, subd. (a), counts 2 & 3). The trial court sentenced him to 47 years eight months in state prison, with 755 days of presentence custody credits. Defendant filed a motion to correct his custody credits, which the court denied. His counsel subsequently submitted a letter to the court stating that defendant was correct, and the court corrected defendant’s credits.

A jury found defendant and appellant Cheryl Ranae Greenwade not guilty of first or second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) [1] but convicted her of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)). In addition, the jury found that defendant had used a deadly weapon, namely a knife, in the killing of the victim. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 11 years, with a one-year weapon enhancement.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence allowed by law. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s order.

Defendant and appellant Barry Edward League pled guilty of failing to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (b)). [1] The registration requirement stems from a 1993 conviction in the state of Washington for lewd acts with a minor under 14 years of age. Defendant admitted the prior offense for purposes of his guilty plea, but also filed a motion to dismiss the strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). The trial court denied the motion. It then imposed the lower term for violation of section 290, subdivision (b), and sentenced defendant to 16 months’ confinement, which it doubled to 32 months pursuant to the three strikes law.

Defendant Carlos Octavio Valdivia is serving 19 years in state prison for a series of sex crimes committed against his 13-year-old neighbor. Defendant challenges only the trial court’s order that he participate in sex-crimes counseling in prison. Defendant argues, the People concede, and we agree, that the order should be stricken as invalid because not authorized by statute.

(Hoover) gang member was driving with his friend in the West Side Verdugo (WSV) gang area. WSV was a rival gang to Hoover. Burns had visible Hoover gang tattoos and was wearing a hat with a commonly-known Hoover gang symbol displayed on it. When they observed a police car following them, defendant took a gun from his waistband and put it under the passenger’s seat. They were stopped by the police and during a search of the vehicle, a loaded nine-millimeter semiautomatic handgun was located under the passenger’s seat. After the crime, defendant bragged in a recorded jailhouse conversation that other gang members were “spooked” of him because of the way he acted when he was on the street, and he wore gang colors during his trial.

At about 1:00 a.m. on October 12, 2012, Benjamin A. Gilsdorf[1] was found passed out in his truck blocking a driveway of a business with the engine still running. Gilsdorf’sblood alcohol content (BAC) was tested one hour later and determined to be at 0.17 percent. After an administrative hearing, the Department of Motor Vehicles (the Department) suspended his driver’s license, finding he had driven a motor vehicle while having a BAC of 0.08 percent or more within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 13353.2, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court denied Gilsdorf’s petition for writ of mandate challenging the suspension.

Defendant Tyrell Rainey and Eric Moss, became angry when asked to leave a barbecue party they attended with Alyssa Zamorano, Moss’s former girlfriend. Defendant told the hosts it was unwise to kick them out when they knew where the apartment was. Later, defendant, Moss, and Jermaine Allen, returned. Defendant banged on the door of the upstairs apartment, then ran downstairs until Sean Ceballos and Mauricio Guandique, one of the hosts, went downstairs. After a few blows were exchanged, Jermaine Allen stepped forward with a rifle and shot Sean Ceballos in the chest area, causingpermanent paralysis. Defendant was charged with the attempted murders (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187) [1] of Sean Ceballos and Mauricio Guandique, with special allegations.[2] A jury acquitted defendant of the count involving Guandique, but he was convicted of premeditated attempted murder of Ceballos, along with the special allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm. He was sentenced to a determinate term of four years and an indeterminate term of life with possibility of parole and appealed.

Defendant Jon Dean Chandler appeals from the trial court’s order of March 5, 2013, revoking his Proposition 36 probation and sentencing him to four years in prison. Defendant argues he should be reinstated on probation because: (1) the trial court did not provide defendant with notice of and a hearing on the latest probation violation; (2) the trial court did not afford defendant three separate grants of probation; (3) the trial court based its decision on an erroneous misunderstanding that his prior strike made him ineligible for Proposition 36 probation; and (4) in the alternative, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s erroneous misunderstanding regarding the effect of his prior strike on his eligibility for Proposition 36. As discussed below, we conclude that defendant became ineligible for reinstatement of probation under Proposition 36 because, under section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(4), he refused drug treatment after being ordered to re-enroll following his failure to complete the first drug treatment program.

The San Diego County District Attorney's Office filed a juvenile delinquency petition under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (undesignated statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified) alleging Kenneth T. committed three felony offenses: (1) robbery (counts 1: Pen. Code, § 211; victim: Stephanie D.); (2) receiving stolen property (count 2: Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)); and (3) grand theft (count 3: Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)).

Following a contested adjudication hearing, the court found true the allegation that Kenneth committed the offense of receiving stolen property, but did not declare on the record whether this offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. The court found not true the allegations that he committed robbery and grand theft.

Plaintiff and appellant Osama A. Alkasabi appeals from a judgment of dismissal and an order granting a motion by defendant and respondent Chandler Heights AZ, LLC (Chandler) to enforce a settlement of the claims in the complaint Alkasabi filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6; all undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) We affirm the judgment of dismissal and deny Chandler's related motions to dismiss and to declare Alkasabi a vexatious litigant.

Lauren T. (Mother) appeals an order that purportedly modified an existing child custody order by reducing her physical custody of her son, Dominic, from 50 percent to five percent and increasing Andrew R.'s (Father) physical custody from 50 percent to 95 percent. On appeal, Mother argues the trial court erred and violated her parental rights by reducing her physical custody based on Father's false claims.

This action for damages on contract and tort theories was brought by plaintiffs and respondents SewTech USA, LLC and its member/manager Neal Flaster (together Respondents), acting through counsel, against defendants and appellants Christopher Jackson and La Toya Hicks (Appellants), based on a dispute over a purchase agreement for a business membership interest. Appellants now challenge a trial court order of June 28, 2013 that granted Respondents' motion to set aside and vacate the superior court clerk's entry of dismissal of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code unless noted.)

Appointed counsel for defendant John Alan Parvin asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant filed a supplemental brief. But this appeal is from the trial court’s nonappealable ruling denying, as untimely, defendant’s recent motion to modify a sentence imposed more than a decade ago. We will dismiss the appeal.