CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Michelle E. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional findings and consequent dispositional orders that removed her 13-year-old daughter Y.E., 12-year-old son R.E., and three-year-old son Et. E. (collectively the children) from her legal and physical custody. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding jurisdiction over the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).[1] We disagree and affirm the juvenile court’s findings and orders.
|
|
L.R. (mother) and Juan G. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s orders failing to find that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption is applicable to their case and terminating the parental rights of both parents to Julian G. (born in 2005) and Jaiden G. (born in 2009) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] We reject the parents’ contentions and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.[2]
|
|
On June 4, 2009, appellant Andrew Rogillo Mancilla entered into a negotiated plea agreement in Kings County case No. 09CM7180. In exchange for his no contest plea to one count of robbery and one count of active participation in a criminal street gang, he was placed on felony probation for five years. (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 211, 186.22, subd. (a).)
On October 19, 2010, appellant was convicted after jury trial in Kings County case No. 10CM7002 of two counts of attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2), three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 3, 4, 5), one count of burglary (§ 459; count 6), three counts of felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); counts 7, 8, 9); and one count of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 10). The jury found true special allegations that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that counts 1 through 9 were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found true two prior strike allegations arising from the convictions in case No. 09CM7180. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).)[2] After the verdicts were entered, the court found in case No. 09CM7180 that appellant violated his probation by failing to obey all laws and by associating with gang members. Appellant was sentenced in both cases on November 17, 2010. In case No. 10CM7002, the court imposed two aggregate terms of 40 years to life for counts 1 and 2, plus an aggregate term of 30 years to life for count 3, and three aggregate terms of 28 years to life for counts 7, 8 and 9. All of the terms were ordered to run consecutively. Sentences were imposed and stayed on counts 4, 5, 6 and 10. In case No. 09CM7180, the court imposed three years for count 1 and a consecutive term of eight months for count 2. The sentence in case No. 09CM7180 was ordered to run consecutive to the sentence in case No. 10CM7002. |
|
The San Bernardino County District Attorney filed two informations against defendant and appellant Diana Dee Hamlin on the same day. In case no. FVI1102017, defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, with a prior conviction for the same offense within 10 years. (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550, 23550.5, count 1). In case No. FVI1102494, defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), count 1.) Both informations alleged that she had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and that she had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).[1] Defendant entered plea agreements in both cases and pled no contest to both counts. She admitted the underlying conviction to count 1 in case No. FVI1102017. She also admitted the prior strike conviction. On both cases, the court dismissed the remaining allegations and sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months in state prison, doubled pursuant to the strike conviction. The court awarded her a total of 261 custody credits[2] and ordered the 32-month terms to be served concurrent to each other.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied. We affirm. |
|
Thirty-five-year-old Nicole O. appeals a judgment establishing a conservatorship of her person pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.).[1] She contends that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) failed to present substantial evidence to (1) establish that she was "presently gravely disabled" and (2) support the court's order placing her in a closed, locked facility. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
|
|
Guadalupe A. appeals an order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition for modification and terminating her parental rights under section 366.26. She asserts the court did not consider her children's wishes about their permanency plans, as required under section 366.26, subdivision (h), and the evidence is insufficient to support an adoptability finding. Guadalupe also challenges the court's findings the beneficial parent/child relationship and sibling relationship exceptions to termination of parental rights did not apply. We affirm.
|
|
Daniel Meyers brought a defamation lawsuit against an owner of a Web site (Sailing Anarchy, Inc.), its publisher (Scot Tempesta), and one of its editors (Alan Block). On appeal, defendants challenge the court's denial of their anti-SLAPP motion seeking to dismiss a cause of action that was based on an alleged defamatory statement appearing on Sailing Anarchy's Web site. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 (§ 425.16).) Defendants contend the court erred in finding there was a reasonable probability Meyers would prevail in proving this cause of action. We reject this contention and affirm.
|
|
Father, Pa. S., appeals the dispositional order in which the juvenile court denied him reunification services with his daughter, the minor. He contends the juvenile court erred in denying him reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5 without having made a removal order or stating the factual basis for that order.[1] We affirm.
|
|
Defendant Joseph Dangelo Duncan, Sr., appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol and resisting arrest, and his admission that he had sustained a prior drunk driving conviction, two prior strike convictions, and had served four prior prison terms.
Defendant contends the October 1, 2011, amendments to Penal Code section 4019[1] increasing presentence conduct credits must be applied to him retroactively and the failure to do so constitutes a violation of equal protection. Following the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896, 906, footnote 9 (Lara), we reject defendant’s contention. Defendant also contends the trial court failed to properly delineate the fines and fees imposed and the statutory bases for those fines and fees. Relying on People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 (High), the People properly concede this point. Accordingly, we remand the matter and direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment with a proper delineation of the fines and fees imposed upon defendant. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. |
|
Mario A. appeals from the juvenile court’s order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him home on probation. He contends assault with a deadly weapon is not a qualifying offense under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b),[1] and the court failed to determine whether the offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings.[2]
|
|
Two minors, J.A. and M.R., appeal from May 17, 2012 adjudication and disposition orders. The juvenile court found the minors committed second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The juvenile court further found J.A. committed the felony for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) J.A. was placed in camp community placement for a period not to exceed 10 years and 8 months. M.R. was placed home on probation, but the juvenile court set a maximum period of physical confinement. We modify the orders in part as to both M.R. and J.A. We affirm in all other respects.
|
|
Domonique B.’s parental rights with respect to her daughter L.H. were terminated pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] Domonique B. claims on appeal that the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the parent-child relationship exception to the statutory preference for adoption. We affirm.
|
|
A felony information charged appellant Brandin Michael Norris with assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1); leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)) (count 2); and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)) (count 3). The information further alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that Norris personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
Before trial, Norris pled guilty to count 3. At the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief in his jury trial, Norris waived his remaining trial rights, pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident (count 2) and admitted the great bodily injury allegation, in exchange for a sentence that would not exceed six years in state prison. The trial court “accept[ed] the plea agreement of the parties,†dismissed count 1 and imposed a seven- |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
