CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Terry W., (father) seeks extraordinary writ review of a November 28, 2012 juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanent plan hearing for his children, Allysa R., Nicole R., and Jayden W. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c).)[1] We summarily deny the writ petition because father failed to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.
|
|
Defendant and appellant Manuel Robledo appeals from the judgment entered following revocation of probation previously granted following his plea of guilty to grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)).[1] The trial court sentenced Robledo to three years in county jail. We affirm.
|
|
Gloria Julia Aoatoa appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in her conviction of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)),[1] second degree robbery (§ 211), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and grand theft of an automobile (§ 487, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Aoatoa to five years in prison. We affirm.
|
|
The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)[1] petition and declared the child Eboni J. a dependent of the court. Appellant A.J. (Mother) appeals, arguing that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. We affirm. The evidence showed that Eboni remained at substantial risk of harm due to Mother’s unresolved mental health issues and the unsafe condition of the home.
|
|
Defendant and appellant Alvin N. appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered following the juvenile court’s revocation of deferred entry of judgment (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 790) which had been ordered following Alvin N.’s admission that he committed the felony of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). Alvin N. was placed at home on probation with a maximum confinement time of six years. We affirm the trial court’s order.
|
|
Maria G. (mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights and establishing adoption as the permanent plan for her son, Christian. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)[1] Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by finding that the beneficial parental and sibling relationship exceptions did not apply to Christian's adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)&(v).) We affirm. |
|
Rodrigo Armando Reynozo appeals his conviction, by jury, of making a criminal threat against his sister, Mariela Reynozo. (Pen. Code, § 422.)[1] The jury acquitted appellant of having made a criminal threat to his mother, Victoria Reynozo. Appellant was sentenced by the trial court to the middle term of two years. He contends: the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence because there is insufficient evidence his sister was actually and reasonably in sustained fear, an element of the offense; the trial court erred in failing to instruct on attempted criminal threat as a lesser included offense; the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of his prior conviction for making a criminal threat against his mother; and the trial court erred in entering a protective order because appellant was not granted probation and was sentenced to prison instead. We strike the protective order and, in all other respects, affirm.
|
|
Mother, Desiree H., appeals from a dependency court order terminating parental rights to her minor child, Jaida H. Her sole contention on appeal is that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the dependency court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (the ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) before terminating parental rights. DCFS concedes that the requirements of ICWA were not satisfied, and we agree. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the dependency court with directions to conduct further inquiry into whether Jaida may have Cherokee ancestry. Should it be concluded that there is not reason to believe Jaida is an Indian child, the order terminating parental rights shall be reinstated. |
|
Gregory W. appeals the jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning his son, Tyler W., who was adjudicated a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b).[1] We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of dependency under section 300, subdivision (a), but affirm jurisdiction under subdivision (b) and also affirm the corresponding dispositional orders.
|
|
A convicted sex offender is required to register in his county of residence. A convicted sex offender who has no place to live is required to register in the county in which he is a transient. If the transient sex offender thereafter acquires a residence, he must register anew within five working days. (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 290, 290.011, subd. (b); People v. Aragon (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 504, 506.)
Defendant Charles Bailey, who previously was convicted of a crime requiring him to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of three counts of being a transient convicted sex offender who failed to register after moving to a residence (§ 290.011, subd. (b)) and three counts of failing to register as a sex offender after an address change (§ 290, subd. (b)), and he admitted that he suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to state prison for a total of six years. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erroneously allowed the People to present testimony as to efforts made to locate two witnesses who did not testify at trial. Defendant claims this evidence was irrelevant and permitted the jury to draw speculative inferences based on innuendo. While we agree that the challenged testimony was irrelevant and thus inadmissible, defendant has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced as a result of the court’s evidentiary error. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. |
|
A jury convicted defendant Lord Julian Antwane of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a).[1] The jury found that defendant personally used and discharged a firearm causing death under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d). The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 50 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for the murder and a consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm-use enhancement under section 12022.53.
Defendant appeals on the grounds that; (1) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding voluntary manslaughter; and (2) the court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte that it could consider provocation in determining the degree of murder. Finding no error, we affirm. |
|
On June 21, 2011, Peter Bolgar filed suit in propria persona against Harris Properties, Inc., “Glen Donald Co. Op. Building, Inc.,†“Diana L. Dodasic,†“Martin Simath,†and the law firm of Hatton, Petrie & Stackler APC (hereafter “Hattonâ€).[1] On August 22, 2011, Bolgar filed a motion for entry of judgment by default against all defendants. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript does not contain an order ruling on the motion. The trial court’s docket reflects that as of May 24, 2012, no default has ever been entered for any party.
On November 15, 2011, Bolgar filed a motion “to implement the rule and law for default against defendants,†apparently seeking entry of default or default judgment. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript does not contain an order ruling on the motion. |
|
Adrian Alonzo appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered against him on his complaint for battery and violation of his civil rights. Defendants demurred to the complaint on the basis of the judgment against Alonzo in a prior federal court action arising from the same incident, and the superior court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
