CA Unpub Decisions

Darius J., father of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s judgment of disposition which denies him visitation with the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395, subd. (a)(1).)[1] He complains that the juvenile court restricted his contact with the minor to supervised letters. We affirm.

Defendant Timothy Myles Nunez pled guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder. (Pen. Code, § 32.)[1] On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper-term sentence of three years in state prison.[2] Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Timothy L. (father) appeals from a juvenile court order of legal guardianship for minors Breanna L. and Stephen L. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] He contends the matter must be remanded due to noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). We agree and shall reverse as to ICWA only.

Generally, if a person makes a will or creates a revocable trust, then marries, then dies without having modified the will or revocable trust after the marriage, the surviving spouse is entitled to a share of the estate, regardless of the terms of the will or revocable trust. (Prob. Code, § 21610; hereafter, unspecified code citations are to the Probate Code.) One exception to this general rule applies if, before dying, the decedent gave the surviving spouse something and meant that gift to take the place of the surviving spouse’s share of the estate. (§ 21611, subd. (b); hereafter § 21611(b).)

J.M. appeals from the order entered March 21, 2012, terminating her parental rights to her biological daughter, J.R., pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26. We appointed counsel to represent her on appeal.
On May 18,2 012, counsel filed a brief in which no arguable issues were raised. On May 21, 2012, we notified appellant that she had 30 days within which to submit any contentions that she wished us to consider, and that the appeal would be dismissed in the absence of any arguable issues. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952.)

After hitting his girlfriend during an argument in May 2010, Jose Luis Castellanos was charged by felony complaint with two counts of inflicting corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)),[1] and one count of dissuading a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1, subd (c)(1)). He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Gloria T. (Mother) appeals orders from the dependency court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition[1] and terminating her parental rights. Mother disappeared from the life of her son, J.T., for more than five years, and she only attempted to establish a relationship with him long after he had come to regard his legal guardian as his mother.
The dependency court did not err in denying Mother’s section 388 petition, and the termination of parental rights was proper. Accordingly, we affirm.

Appellant Jose Jimenez appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate his plea under Penal Code section 1016.5[1] on the grounds that the advisement he received at the taking of his plea did not substantially comport with the requirements of section 1016.5, subdivision (a), and the trial court that heard his motion to vacate the

Herman Rodriguez appeals from a judgment ordering his former wife Sondra Rodriguez to pay him $150 per month to purchase his interest in the family residence.[1] Herman complains that the court improperly altered the terms of the parties’ 2007 marital settlement agreement (MSA), which required Sondra to sell the residence and pay him $75,000 from the proceeds. When the court modified the MSA, it acted upon equitable considerations that are well within its discretion. We affirm.

Victor Mendez (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following remand for resentencing on his convictions for one count of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)),[1] one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), seven counts of second degree robbery (§ 211), and true findings on criminal street gang and firearm allegations on each count (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C); 12022, subd. (a)(1); 1203.06, subd. (a)(1); 12022.5, subd. (a); and 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)). We appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues. On May 2, 2012, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

Glenn M. Rosen, attorney for plaintiff Robin Rosen, appeals from the August 29, 2011[1] order of the superior court imposing sanctions upon him in the amount of $3,000 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. We affirm the order.
Following our initial review of the record and Rosen’s opening brief, we notified Rosen by letter that it appeared the record did not include all the documents relating to the sanctions order, nor a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on the order to show cause re sanctions for purposes of appellate review. In response, Rosen submitted a reporter’s transcript of the sanctions hearing. This court augmented the record to include the reporter’s transcript submitted by Rosen. In his letter, Rosen also represented he could provide copies of the amended complaint and a response to a demurrer. This court granted Rosen an additional ten days to file a further motion to augment, although no motion has been received.
The record on appeal is inadequate for appellate review. The record does not contain any of the pleadings that were the basis of the sanctions order. In particular, the record lacks the operative complaint, the demurrer, the response to the demurrer, and the trial court’s order to show cause. These documents are necessary for resolution of Rosen’s appeal

Bernard Parks and Bernard Parks for Supervisor, an unincorporated entity established to support Parks’s campaign to become a Los Angeles County Supervisor (the Campaign), appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent Call Center Services, Inc. Appellants contend (1) the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment on the Campaign’s liability for breach of contract, (2) the court erred in finding, after a bench trial, that Parks was individually liable on the contract, and (3) the trial court erred in denying appellants’ motion for a new trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

After receiving information from a confidential informant, narcotics officers obtained a search warrant and went to an apartment complex. Upon arriving at the designated apartment, the officers knocked on the front door and announced their presence. The wooden front door was open. Through the security screen door officers could see James Roach and Justin Leighton Wilson inside the apartment. The officers entered and searched the apartment. They found a box of sandwich bags on a table, a drawer containing rubber-banded money, a pay-owe sheet, a digital scale and some rock cocaine. Inside a bathroom the officers also found drugs and cash in and around the toilet. The officers detained Roach and Wilson, as well as George Bruce, who was holding a prescription bottle containing rock cocaine, and Anthony J. Sullivan, who was attempting to hide a small plastic bag.
Roach was charged by amended information with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). The information specially alleged Roach had served one prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and had suffered one prior drug-related conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a).

Jose Luis Rojas was convicted of murdering a rival during a period of gangland warfare. On appeal, Rojas challenges the admissibility of evidence regarding the shooting of his gang-member son six days earlier, which was presented to show defendant’s vengeful motives. Rojas also claims that the jury failed to follow instructions. We find no error and affirm.