CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant James Edward Smith contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle, and in denying his Trombetta[1] motion to dismiss on account of the loss of exculpatory evidence.
We disagree with defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence, as defendant was lawfully detained and the searches of his vehicle were based on his voluntary consent. The trial court also properly denied the Trombetta motion, as defendant failed to show the loss of potential evidence was the result of bad faith conduct by law enforcement officers, and that the lost evidence was material and exculpatory.

Anthony M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court orders terminating parental rights to his daughter, Anna, and establishing adoption as her permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26).[1] Father contends that the finding of Anna's adoptability is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Appellants M.D. (Mother) and S.C. (Father) appeal the orders denying their petitions for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and the order terminating their parental rights under section 366.26.[1] Finding no error, we affirm.

James Mitchell Reyes appeals the judgment entered after he pled guilty to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle with a prior vehicle theft conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code,[1] § 666.5), driving while intoxicated or with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or more (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a), (b)), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)). Appellant also admitted allegations that he had suffered a prior conviction for robbery (§ 211), which qualifies as a strike (§§ 667, 1170.12), and had served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court denied appellant's Romero[2] motion, struck the prior prison term allegations, and sentenced him to four years in state prison.
Because appellant pled guilty prior to trial, the relevant facts are derived from the preliminary hearing transcript. Someone stole a car from a gas station while its owner was paying for gas. Later that day, appellant was pulled over while driving the car erratically. Appellant was arrested after a preliminary alcohol-screening sample revealed he had a 0.24 blood alcohol level.

Appellants M.D. (Mother) and S.C. (Father) appeal the orders denying their petitions for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and the order terminating their parental rights under section 366.26.[1] Finding no error, we affirm.

Tierra M.’s two children, Marcus S. and T.S., were declared dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).[1] After several years, the juvenile court terminated Tierra M.’s parental rights and selected adoption as the children’s permanent plan. Tierra M. appeals the order, arguing that the court erred by failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). We affirm.

Terry W. appeals from an April 18, 2013 order terminating his parental rights to A. R. (age 16), Nicole R. (age 15), and Jayden W. (age 5) and freeing the girls for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Appellant contends that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception precludes the girls' adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Bobby Lee Collins (defendant) appeals his judgment of conviction of first degree burglary. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On October 28, 2013, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues affirm the judgment.
In an amended information, defendant was charged with the first degree burglary of an inhabited, occupied dwelling, in violation of Penal Code section 459.[1] The information also alleged that defendant had been convicted in 1979 of a prior serious or violent felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” Law, sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and for purposes of section 667, subdivision (a)(1); and that defendant had served prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
At trial, the prosecution presented evidence showing that on January 18, 2013, defendant used a ladder to access the bathroom window of an occupied residence, removed a screen from its frame and opened the window. A neighbor saw defendant in the yard of the residence, confronted him, and later identified him.

Christina D. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her child, Alexis M. (child), now five years old, and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Mother argues that her counsel was ineffective because he failed to present an offer of proof as to the beneficial relationship exception to the termination of parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

V.M. appeals the juvenile court's order denying her petition to modify an order placing her minor grandson Frankie L. with his prospective adoptive parents (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 388). The trial court denied the petition in conjunction with terminating the parental rights of Frankie's father and ordering a permanent plan of adoption (§ 366.26).[2] Appellant contends that she demonstrated changed circumstances and that placing Frankie with her would be in the child's best interests. She also claims the court abused its discretion in failing to grant her visitation with Frankie. We affirm.

On March 10, 2011, the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). At the time the petition was filed, Lillian was two years old and F. was one year old. A report filed by HSA in support of the petition stated:
In January 2011 Mother was convicted of child endangerment. The police found her lying on the grass outside her home, heavily intoxicated. Her children had been left without supervision.
Mother is 24 years old. She admitted that she has been an alcoholic since age 14. She has a history of convictions for substance abuse and violence. Mother also suffers from mental health problems, including bipolar disorder.
After Mother's child endangerment conviction, she entered a residential drug and alcohol abuse treatment program with her children. Program personnel reported to HSA that Mother was close to being discharged from the residential program for fighting with other residents. The person reporting the matter stated she was concerned for the safety of the children because Mother has a violent temper and does not watch her children.

A neighbor called police after seeing Jaime Salas fire a semiautomatic handgun into the air. Salas refused to comply with the commands of responding officers and physically resisted their efforts to take him into custody.
An information charged Salas with discharging a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 246.3, subd. (a)),[1] possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The information specially alleged Salas had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions for robbery (a juvenile adjudication and an adult conviction) within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and one serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Salas pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.
Prior to trial Salas filed motions to suppress evidence seized following a search of his apartment (§ 1538.5); bifurcate the trial of his prior conviction allegations; sanitize the prior felony conviction (robbery), which formed the basis for the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon; and preclude the People from introducing any photographs of, or otherwise referring to, the firearms found in his apartment. The trial court heard and granted these motions. Salas also moved to dismiss his prior strike convictions (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero); § 1385), which the court denied without prejudice, and to bifurcate trial on the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and exclude evidence of police emergency calls, which the court heard and denied.

Plaintiff Teresa Estrada appeals from judgments of dismissal in favor of defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser), County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as Olive View Medical Center), Samer Alaiti, M.D., and Paul Grodan, M.D., after all of those defendants’ demurrers to Estrada’s second amended complaint were sustained without leave to amend. We affirm the judgments as to County of Los Angeles, Dr. Alaiti, and Dr. Grodan, but reverse as to Kaiser.

Tyesha A. (mother) appeals the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court affecting her children Tyra J. and Dominique A.[1] The main issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[2] We conclude there was substantial evidence to sustain the petition. Therefore, we affirm.