CA Unpub Decisions

Channing Shalako Bourne appeals from his conviction on one count of felonious assault (Pen. Code,[1] § 245, subd. (a)(1)), following his plea of no contest. After Bourne filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders)), in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (Kelly).) Counsel attests that Bourne was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not exercised that right.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with Wende. We agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal and affirm.

Antione Thomas (defendant) appeals from the single judgment entered following jury trials in two separate unrelated cases. In the first case, a jury convicted defendant of one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). In the second case, a jury convicted defendant of one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with a further finding that he had personally used a handgun in the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b)). In each case, following a bifurcated trial, the jury found defendant had at least four prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Defendant was sentenced for both cases in a single proceeding, and was given a total state prison term of 60 years to life.

Appellant Eric Moberg, a self-represented litigant, was hired in 2009 by respondent Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (the District) as a special education teacher for young adult students with moderate to severe handicaps. In 2010, the District issued a statement of charges and notice of recommendation for dismissal of Moberg as a probationary certified employee. The statement of charges informed Moberg that he was being dismissed for cause, including evident unfitness for service (Ed. Code, § 44932, subd. (a)(5))[1] and persistent violation of or refusal to obey school laws or regulations (§ 44932, subd. (a)(7)). In a supplemental statement of charges, the District added the additional charge of dishonesty (§ 44932, subd. (a)(3)).
After an administrative hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld Moberg’s dismissal on the charges of dishonesty (§ 44932, subd. (a)(3)) and persistent violation of or refusal to obey school laws or regulations (§ 44932, subd. (a)(7)). The ALJ’s decision was adopted by the District’s governing board. Moberg challenged his dismissal by filing a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court. The writ petition was denied on the grounds that the court’s independent review of the administrative record showed that the weight of the evidence supported Moberg’s dismissal on two charges, persistent refusal to obey school laws or regulations (§ 44932, subd. (a)(7)) and evident unfitness for service (§ 44932, subd. (a)(5)).

Defendant Jose Cardenas Moreno appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5.[1] In 1999, defendant pleaded no contest to threats to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury (§ 422), injuring or obstructing telephone or cable lines (§ 591), and carrying a concealed and stolen firearm (former § 12025, subd. (a)(2)). Defendant was detained several years later by an immigration official, who informed him that he was no longer eligible to remain in the United States due to his criminal convictions. Defendant then filed a motion to vacate the 1999 judgment on the ground that the trial court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. The trial court denied the motion. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and affirm the order.

Subsequent to finding defendant Joshua David Grunwald not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon as charged in count one, a jury found him guilty of the lesser included crime of misdemeanor assault, guilty of inflicting injury on a cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition as charged in count two, guilty of making criminal threats as charged in count three, not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon as charged in count four, but guilty of the lesser included crime of misdemeanor assault and guilty of false imprisonment as charged in count five.
After the jury was excused, the court took judicial notice of defendant’s burglary conviction in Arkansas, and found it to be true. The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of 12 years four months.
Defendant’s contention there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding his Arkansas conviction is a serious felony under California law is without merit. We affirm.

Petitioner A.B. (petitioner) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her infant daughter, Aaliyah B.[1] Petitioner challenges the juvenile court’s detention of and exercise of dependency jurisdiction over Aaliyah, the department’s decision not to place Aaliyah with her paternal grandmother, and the juvenile court’s findings resulting in its order denying reunification services. On review, we conclude petitioner’s arguments are meritless.

At a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations that appellant, J.G., a minor, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)), and violated probation that had been granted in a prior wardship proceeding. At the subsequent disposition hearing, the court continued appellant as a ward of the court, placed him under the supervision of the probation officer for placement in the home of appellant’s parents, and ordered him committed to the Bear Creek Academy Short Term Program, Level 3.
On appeal, appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the instant adjudications. We affirm.

A modification decision.

Defendant, Gregory Allen Pollock, pled no contest to possessing cocaine base for sale and the trial court sentenced him, as agreed, to the low term of three years in prison after striking a “strike.” Defendant argues the case should be remanded for re-sentencing because the trial court should have sentenced him to serve his time in county jail, rather than state prison, under recent legislation known as the Realignment Act. As discussed below, the very fact that defendant had a prior “strike” conviction, even if stricken for sentencing purposes, made him ineligible to serve his time in county jail under the Realignment Act.

Defendant, Opal Leanne Faulk, was sentenced to three years in prison[1] after pleading no contest to being an accessory to murder after the fact. In 1988 defendant had helped her then-husband escape responsibility for the shotgun murders of his two elderly employers. In this appeal, defendant contends the trial court improperly imposed a restitution fine to reimburse the victims’ daughter for funeral expenses. Specifically, defendant argues that the facts behind her conviction for being an accessory to murder after the fact exclude her from being the cause of the victims’ funeral expenses.

Jessica T. seeks review of juvenile court findings and orders denying family reunification services to her under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(4) and (b)(5), and setting a hearing under section 366.26 to select and implement a permanency plan for her son. We deny the petition.

José J. appeals judgments declaring his son, David J., and daughter, Lizbeth J., dependents of the juvenile court and removing them from the custody of José and his wife, Carmen L. José challenges the court's jurisdictional finding that David was at risk of sexual abuse based on José's sexual abuse of David's half-sister, Angie H. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (d), (j); undesignated section references are to this code.) We affirm.

Joseph F., an alleged father of Christopher M., appeals the juvenile court's order denying him presumed father status and a hearing on his petition for modification pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388.[1] We affirm.

In June 2011, Kevin D. Melton was charged with two counts of inflicting corporal injury to a spouse or roommate and one count each of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, false imprisonment and disobeying a court order. Melton pleaded guilty to one count of inflicting corporal injury to a spouse or roommate. The court subsequently dismissed the balance of the complaint.