CA Unpub Decisions

C. E., mother of minors Veronica E. and Alexander E., appeals from the dispositional orders of the juvenile court adjudging the minors dependents and denying her reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 360, subd. (d), 361.5, subd. (b), 395.)[1] Mother contends that the juvenile court erroneously denied her three Marsden[2] motions and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Mother, who has a long history of alcoholism, also contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s denial of services under the bypass provisions in section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13). We affirm.[3]

A jury found defendant Jose Manual Garcia Vidales guilty of second degree robbery, conspiracy to commit a felony, criminal street gang activity, and exhibiting a deadly weapon other than a firearm, a misdemeanor. In connection with the felonies, the jury found that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon. The jury could not reach a verdict on gang enhancements. Instead of retrial on the gang enhancements, defendant entered a negotiated admission to the gang enhancement attached to the conspiracy count in exchange for both the dismissal of the gang enhancement attached to the robbery and a stipulated sentence of 11 years. The court sentenced defendant accordingly.

Petitioner Jennifer Marie White seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its April 2, 2012 order granting real party Dina A. Barkus’s renewed motion for new trial. White contends, among other things, that the trial court had no authority or jurisdiction to grant a new trial. We agree and grant the petition.

Monique Lucero petitions for a writ of mandate compelling the trial court to grant her Pitchess[1] motion on the basis that she demonstrated good cause for the discovery. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) asserts that there is no good cause for discovery and that discovery of the requested records is barred by Evidence Code[2] section 1047 because the officer who is the subject of the motion was not involved in Lucero’s arrest or detention. We find section 1047 inapplicable to this case because the alleged officer misconduct does not involve Lucero’s arrest or detention.

M. F. (mother) challenges a juvenile court order establishing a permanent plan of legal guardianship for her two children, S. F. (S., born Nov. 2003) and Ruby F. (Ruby, born Dec. 2005) with maternal relatives and dismissing juvenile court jurisdiction.
We affirm.

Appellant Carlos Antonio Sarmiento appeals from the order revoking the suspension of the execution of his four-year prison sentence previously imposed following his plea of no contest to petty theft with a prior conviction (former Pen. Code, § 666; count 2) with an admission he suffered a prior felony conviction for which he served a separate prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). We will vacate the above order and related orders, and remand the matter for resentencing.

Defendant and appellant Rafael Vicente Sandoval was convicted by a jury of murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted murder (§ 664/187, subd. (a)). He asserts instructional error requires reversal. We affirm.

Steve Chavez appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of two counts of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69).[1] After granting appellant’s Romero[2] motion and striking his prior felony strike, the trial court sentenced him to 16 months in state prison. Appellant contends that (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed defense witnesses to be impeached with prior convictions of child-sex offenses, (2) the trial court improperly denied his motion to reduce the charged offenses to misdemeanors, and (3) the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.
We affirm with directions.

Tim A. Pori (Pori) is a criminal defense attorney representing Andrew Wong in People v. Wong (Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2009, No. 163657) (People v. Wong), presently pending retrial in respondent, the Superior Court of Alameda County.[2] By Order and Judgment of Contempt filed April 16, 2012, Pori was found in contempt of court (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1211, 1218),[3] and sentenced to spend five days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $1,000. In addition, sanctions in the amount of $1,500 were imposed. (§ 177.5.)
Pori sought immediate relief from this court.[4] We stayed the Order and Judgment of Contempt. As will be seen, although we do not condone Pori’s conduct where he improvidently overscheduled himself and then tried to pick and choose which cases he would try, the contempt judgment is void due to technical procedural noncompliance, and the imposition of sanctions pursuant to section 177.5 is not supported by the record. Accordingly, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance.

Sara V. (mother) appeals an order of February 15, 2012, following a permanency planning hearing for nine-year-old son Christian C., that terminated her parental rights and chose adoption for the boy. She claims erroneous rejection of the sibling relationship exception to adoption (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v)), [1] but we uphold the ruling and affirm the order.

Olga Akilov, who has been protected by a series of protective orders against her former husband, Vladimir Leo Rosenblum, appeals the entry of an order directing her to stay away from him. We find in the record no justification for such an order against her. Moreover, the order purports to be “a non-CLETS Stay-Away Order”[1] for which there is no authority. We shall therefore reverse the order.

This court previously denied a petition for extraordinary writ relief filed by appellant Marcus H. (father) after the juvenile court set a permanency planning hearing as to his daughter, M.H. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26). (Marcus H. v. Superior Court (May 13, 2011, A131461) [nonpub. opn.].) The juvenile court thereafter terminated father’s parental rights, concluding that father had not established that an exception to the termination of parental rights applied. This timely appeal followed.
On June 7, 2012, father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a no issues statement in accordance with In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 and In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, stating that she had reviewed the record and concluded that there were no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Father wrote to this court on July 3, acknowledging that he made mistakes early in the proceedings, but stating that he wants to maintain a relationship with the minor.

Defendant Edward L. Martinez appeals from a three-year, suspended prison sentence he received, which included, subject to local custody credits, a 12-month term in the county jail, following his plea of no contest to robbery (Pen. Code,[1] § 211). Defendant’s counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention, but has not done so. Having conducted the requested review, we conclude there are no errors or arguable issues for review, and thus, affirm the judgment.

Defendant Paris William Berry appealed after he was convicted of second degree robbery and other crimes for shoplifting from two grocery stores. He argues that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to exercise peremptory challenges to remove an African-American prospective juror and an African-American prospective alternate juror based on their race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 89 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler). We disagree and affirm.