CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Anthony G. (the father) appeals the court’s order terminating reunification services as to his teenage daughters Vanessa and Erica.[1] He asserts the court lacked substantial evidence to conclude that he received reasonable services and that returning his daughters to his care would be detrimental. We conclude these arguments lack merit. He also asks this court to continue the 18-month review hearing for six months. Because the father has not demonstrated such a continuance is warranted, we deny his request and affirm the order.
I |
|
Defendant Jaime Lynn Whitlock pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The trial court placed defendant on formal probation, which included 120 days in local custody. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence. (See Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m) [“A defendant may seek further review of the validity of a search or seizure on appeal from a conviction in a criminal case notwithstanding the fact that the judgment of conviction is predicated upon a plea of guiltyâ€].) The record supports the court’s finding that the police had a reasonable suspicion that defendant’s boyfriend, a parolee, had joint possession or control over the searched areas in which the evidence was found. We therefore affirm the judgment.
|
|
On March 18, 2008, appellant Daniel Keith Hendrix pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to second degree robbery (Pen. Code,[1] § 211) and grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)), as alleged in counts 1 and 3, respectively of a second amended information filed by the Fresno County District Attorney.
On April 8, 2008, appellant was admitted to Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) with an adjusted maximum commitment date of November 1, 2025. On December 9, 2011, the ASH Forensic Services Director and Medical Director filed a certification that appellant would no longer be a danger to the health and safety of others if placed on outpatient status (§ 1603). On March 1, 2012, the court conducted a hearing on the certification after appellant waived his rights to personally appear and have a trial by jury. The parties stipulated to the evidentiary admission of reports from ASH and the outpatient program. The defense presented testimony from the program director and the court took the matter under submission. On March 8, 2012, the court denied appellant’s motion for outpatient treatment. On March 16, 2012, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. |
|
On October 7, 2011, appellant Kesava Braeger pleaded no contest to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 16 (Pen. Code,[1] § 261.5, subd. (d)). In exchange for the plea, the court dismissed three other counts of sexual offenses (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 288a, subd. (c)(2), 288, subd. (c)(1)) on motion of the district attorney. The written change of plea form signed by appellant indicated that appellant could be sentenced to a maximum term of four years in state prison.
|
|
Salvador Fernando Gutierrez forced his way into a house, shot one of the occupants in the head, and hit another occupant with a gun. Property stolen from another house was found in his car. He was convicted of attempted murder, burglary, being a felon in possession of a firearm, receiving stolen property, and assault with a firearm. He testified at trial, and in his version of events, he was a drug dealer. An occupant of the house was his supplier, and the shooting was an accident that happened when a disagreement arose over payment, and the supplier’s brother-in-law pulled a gun, leading to a struggle. The jury rejected this story and the court sentenced Gutierrez to 26 years eight months plus 25 years to life.
|
|
Defendant Veronica Crystal Ramos appeals from an order granting probation (Pen. Code, § 1237)[1] following her plea of no contest to a charge of petty theft with three priors (§ 666) and admission of a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5). We find the challenged condition of probation to be unexceptionable and affirm the judgment.[2]
|
|
Jessica K. appeals orders entered at a jurisdiction and disposition hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300, subdivision (b), and 361. 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 that review pursuant to 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 [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny Jessica's requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issue. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Jessica's counsel requests leave for her client to file a supplemental brief in propria persona (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835) and also asks this court to order counsel to brief any arguable issue (Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 U.S. 75, 88). The requests are denied. |
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Johnson asked this court to review the record to 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.
|
|
R.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to A.M. (minor). (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 366.26.) She contends that the trial court erred by finding the beneficial parental relationship exception to terminating parental rights did not apply. We disagree and shall affirm. |
|
Counsel for defendant Darrell Joseph Marchetti has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.[1] (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no error and affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.) Defendant and Paula Patterson lived together in a motor home. On the night of May 15, 2011, after Patterson went to bed, defendant used a knife to cut through the bamboo door that hung in front of the bedroom. Patterson opened the door to investigate and was confronted by defendant holding a knife. She pushed defendant toward the kitchen and onto the floor, grabbed the knife and threw it in the sink. As Patterson looked around for something to protect herself with, defendant grabbed a large glass bottle from under the table and struck her two or three times in the stomach. When Patterson doubled over in pain, defendant used the bottle to strike her twice on the chin. The force of the blows broke her dentures and cut her mouth. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
