CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Christopher Titus appeals from a judgment on reserved issues entered after dissolution of his marriage to respondent Erin Titus. He contends that the trial court erred by not considering new evidence he submitted in support of his post-trial motion for reconsideration, and abused its discretion by making numerous arbitrary and inconsistent rulings. We affirm.

Appellant Dennis Handler appeals from the renewal of a domestic violence restraining order, and the related modification of child custody. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the extension. The order, however, is inconsistent with respect to legal custody; we remand for clarification of the order.

A modification decision.

Defendant Dandrea Brooks pleaded no contest to two counts of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2))[1] in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 32 years in the state prison and dismissal of the remaining counts. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the negotiated disposition and, among other things, imposed 10-year criminal protective orders as to each of the two rape victims (§ 136.2) and granted 768 days of presentence custody credit (§ 2900.5).
On appeal, defendant contends that the criminal protective orders were not authorized under section 136.2 and his presentence custody credits total 777 days when calculated correctly. The People concede that the 10-year criminal protective orders were not authorized under the version of section 136.2 in effect at the time of defendant’s sentencing. In a subsequent letter to this court, defendant concedes that his presentence custody credits were correctly calculated. As we will explain, we find both concessions appropriate and we will strike the protective orders.
Defendant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which this court ordered considered with the appeal. In his petition, defendant raises an issue concerning the adequacy of the trial court’s advisement regarding the plea consequence of lifetime sex offender registration under section 290. We have disposed of the habeas petition by separate order filed this date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.387(b)(2)(B).)

On April 6, 2010, appellant, Javonte Dyrell Harper, waived his constitutional rights and pleaded no contest to the charge that he carried a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1))[1] and he admitted he was not the registered owner of the gun (§ 12031, subd. (a)(2)(F)). On June 28, 2010, the trial court placed appellant on probation, suspending imposition of sentence. The court ordered appellant to spend 90 days in jail, with 34 days of custody credits and 34 days of conduct credits. The court imposed a $200 restitution fine. On October 13, 2010, July 11, 2011, and September 7, 2011, appellant admitted violating the terms and conditions of his probation. The court reinstated appellant’s probation.
On January 3, 2012, appellant waived his right to a hearing and admitted violating his probation by failing to take drug tests in 2011 on September 20th, October 4th, October 11th, and October 25th. Appellant admitted he had positive drug tests for marijuana in 2011 on September 13th and September 17th. Appellant also admitted failing to appear for appointments scheduled by the probation department and failed to provide proof of attendance to Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

A jury found defendant and appellant Frank Soto guilty of (1) attempted forcible rape (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 261, subd. (a)(2));[1] (2) misdemeanor battery (§ 242); and (3) kidnapping (§ 207). The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for a term of eight years. Defendant raises three issues on appeal: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request the jury be instructed on the law of voluntary intoxication as it relates to attempted rape; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the instruction that battery is a lesser included offense of attempted rape; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper prison term for the kidnapping conviction. We affirm the judgment.

This opinion follows our November 1, 2012, order granting defendant’s petition for rehearing and vacating our prior opinion in this matter. (People v. Solia (Oct. 11, 2012, E053035) [nonpub. opn.]; Cal Rules of Court, rule 8.268(d).)[1]

Andrew Saunders appeals a judgment entered after a jury verdict convicting him of burglary of an inhabited residence (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460)[1] with a true finding that someone was present during the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)).[2] On appeal, he argues the jury instructions did not sufficiently instruct that the fingerprint analyst's expert testimony was opinion, in violation of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We conclude Saunders forfeited this claim on appeal because he did not raise the issue at trial. Nevertheless, we conclude the trial court sufficiently instructed the jury that the fingerprint analyst's testimony was opinion, and no further instruction was required. He also contends the expert fingerprint testimony was inadmissible.

On appeal, Donald[1] contends that (1) the court erred by relying on the case Estate of Stoker (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 236 (Stoker) in admitting the will to probate; (2) there is not substantial evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard required for defective wills under Probate Code[2] section 6110, subdivision (c)(2); and (3) "the court erred in not giving credibility to the witnesses who testified on [behalf of Donald]." We affirm.

A jury found Robert Cordova guilty of driving or taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). Cordova admitted allegations that he had suffered a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12) and four prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
At the sentencing hearing, the court denied Cordova's Romero[1] motion to strike the prior strike, struck the punishment for the four prison prior enhancements, and sentenced Cordova to the middle term of three years in state prison, which the court doubled under the Three Strikes law to six years.
Cordova appeals, contending the court committed reversible error when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of statements of denial he made to police during questioning before he was given a Miranda[2] warning. We conclude the court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

K.H. and Y. T., parents of minors N.H. and David H. (David) (collectively “minors”), appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 366.26, 395 [].) The parents contend the juvenile court erred under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) in deviating from the ICWA placement preference order without good cause and that insufficient “active efforts” were made to keep the Indian family together. Disagreeing, we shall affirm.

Following a guilty plea, defendant Dwayne Darrish Graham was granted five years’ probation. The trial court imposed a $200 restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4),[1] and a $200 probation revocation fine was imposed and stayed (§ 1202.44). Later, upon probation being revoked, the trial court imposed a $600 restitution fine. Defendant appeals the imposition of this second restitution fine as an unauthorized sentence. We agree with defendant and correct the judgment.

Tina L. Caldwell appeals a judgment after pleading no contest to second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) (count 4) and admitting a probation violation.[1] Following a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced her to three years in county jail for count 4 and imposed a consecutive term of eight months for the probation violation.
We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Caldwell's request to modify the sentencing portion of her plea agreement, and 2) it did not err by imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant, Marc Christian Steigleder, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In 2003, Steigleder was convicted for cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358) and sentenced to probation for three years. In 2011, Steigleder filed a coram nobis petition seeking to vacate that judgment.
The trial court’s denial of Steigleder’s coram nobis petition is affirmed.