CA Unpub Decisions

E.S. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her son, M.L. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Arguing that she should be excused from failing to seek writ review of the section 366.26 setting hearing, she raises the following issues: (1) the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Family Code section 3400 et. seq.; (2) the juvenile court erred in appointing a guardian ad litem and in failing to remove the guardian ad litem, sua sponte, during the course of the proceedings; and (3) the jurisdictional findings should be vacated. We find no merit to mother’s arguments and therefore reject them.

Appellant Orlando Hernandez Silva appeals from a judgment of sentence following a plea of nolo contendere to one count of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code,[1] § 191.5, subd. (a)) with the infliction of bodily injury on two additional victims during the commission of that substantive offense (Veh. Code, § 23558).

Appellant Lynda Lucido appeals from two orders entered by the trial court in April 2011 regarding the conservatorship and trust estate of June E. Guinn. One order terminated the conservatorship of the estate of Guinn, transferred remaining assets into the trust estate, and left intact the conservatorship of the person. The other order entered a judgment against appellant and in favor of a surety, Western Surety Company (Western), to recover sums that Western was required to pay under its surety bond after appellant was found liable for funds missing from the estate when she was conservator. As best as we can tell from her appeal, appellant contends that the proceedings below were invalid because, allegedly, her prior removal as conservator and trustee and the appointment of M. Terry Campbell (Campbell) to replace her were based on forged court orders and other fraud perpetrated on the court. We conclude that appellant did not meet her burden as the appealing party, failed to produce an adequate record to support her contentions, and forfeited the points raised on appeal by failure to present them in the trial court. For all of these reasons, the orders of the trial court are affirmed.

Defendant Phillip Ellison was charged with premeditated murder committed during the commission or attempted commission of rape (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C); count 1) and attempted forcible rape (id., §§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 664; count 2). He was further alleged to have suffered a prior serious felony conviction under the “Three Strikes” law. (Id., §§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e).) His first trial ended in a mistrial prior to opening statements. Following a second trial, a jury convicted him as charged and found the prior conviction allegation to be true. The People having elected not to seek the death penalty, defendant was sentenced to prison for a total unstayed term of life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, he raises claims of insufficient evidence, and trial and sentencing error. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

C. T. appeals an order terminating her parental rights and freeing her son, T. T., for adoption. She contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her a hearing on her petition for modification of the order terminating services, that she was denied due process at the hearing on termination of her parental rights, and that the court should have found that the beneficial parental relationship exception to the preference for adoption applies.
We will affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Cesar Albert Mora guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, a knife, active participation in a criminal street gang, and possession of a shank while in custody. The jury also found a gang enhancement true on the assault conviction and in a separate trial found defendant had three prior serious felony convictions, three prior strikes, and three prison priors. Defendant was sentenced to 58 years to life, including 25 years to life for the assault conviction plus five years for the gang enhancement on the assault conviction. A 25-year-to-life term was imposed but stayed on the active gang participation conviction.
On this appeal, defendant claims the evidence is insufficient to support his active gang participation conviction and the gang enhancement on his assault conviction. Regarding the active gang participation conviction, he argues no rational fact finder could have concluded the Black Angels was a criminal street gang because the prosecution’s gang expert did not testify, and no other evidence showed, that the primary activities of the Black Angels consisted of criminal acts listed in Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (e).[1] Regarding the gang enhancement on the assault conviction, he argues no rational fact finder could have found he committed the assault for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the Black Angels, because the evidence showed only that he stabbed the victim in a fight at a party. We reject these claims and affirm.

Melissa H. appeals findings and orders entered at a permanency plan and selection hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.

T.B. appeals the orders entered at the jurisdictional and disposition hearing held under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 360, subdivision (d), and 361, subdivision (c). Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order obtained by the state, adversely affecting his [or her] custody of a child or his [or her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny T.B.'s request to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)

Jaime S. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order obtained by the state, adversely affecting his [or her] custody of a child or his [or her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny Jaime's request to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)

Michelle M. appeals the orders entered at the 12-month hearing held under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.

Carson M. appeals a juvenile court order denying his request for presumed father status as to his minor stepdaughter, A.S. He contends he established he was A.S.'s presumed father within the meaning of Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d)[1] because he received A.S. into his home and openly held her out as his daughter. Carson also appeals an order denying his request for unsupervised visits with his minor son, D.M., contending there was no substantial evidence to support the court's finding visits should continue to be supervised. We affirm the orders.

Defendant David Marshall Davis and his stepson, 16 year-old D.W., were cleaning out a room in the family home when D.W. fell asleep. Defendant threw a plastic object at D.W., striking his right eye. Defendant also punched him in the ribs about 10 times. As a result, D.W. had a horizontal line across his field of vision which did not heal.
Later that week, defendant assaulted his cohabitant, D.W.’s mother Page G. He pushed her against the kitchen wall, hit her in the face with a closed fist, and threw her to the ground. Page G. was three months pregnant with defendant’s child. While she was on the ground, defendant stomped on her stomach with his foot and yelled that he hoped she would miscarry. He also threatened to kill Page G. if she got law enforcement involved. D.W. distracted defendant by letting the dogs in, and then fled with his mother.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jack B. Colbert 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Jay Michael Jones guilty of six counts of child molestation and sustained five allegations of substantial sexual conduct; it acquitted him of a seventh molestation count. The trial court sustained recidivist allegations.
The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for 31 years. As is pertinent to this appeal, it also imposed one fine of $300 under Penal Code section 290.3 (the sex offender fine), among the assessments on which (totaling $840) was a $90 penalty assessment under Government Code section 76104.7 (the DNA penalty assessment). It then imposed an administrative fee of 15 percent for the collection of the restitution it had ordered. This was in accordance with the recommendations of the probation report.