CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant James Allen McDowell repeatedly molested his stepdaughter when she was between the ages of six and nine. A jury convicted defendant of 53 counts of lewd acts upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)) and one count of sodomy upon a child 10 years of age or younger. (§ 288.7, subd. (a).)
The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of eight years on count 1, two consecutive years each for counts 2 through 53 (104 years), and a consecutive term of 25 years to life on count 54. Defendant’s total sentence is 137 years to life.
On appeal, defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions on 54 counts of sexual abuse. He further charges the court committed Griffin[2] error. In supplemental briefing, he asserts it was also error to admit the victim’s unredacted recorded statement and the court should not have imposed the aggravated term on count 1. We have reviewed the record and determined the evidence is sufficient and no prejudicial error occurred. We affirm the judgment and the sentence in full.

In the joint trial of Antoinette L. Dokes and Rachael E. Wheelis, a jury convicted Dokes of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),[1] conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 245, subd. (a)(1)) and misdemeanor vandalism, along with making a finding that Dokes personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury convicted Wheelis of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 245, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court imposed a prison term of 15 years to life on Dokes, and a prison term of 11 years on Wheelis.

An inattentive motorist (who is not party to this appeal) struck a 14-year-old bicyclist, plaintiff Kerri Ann Peltier, in a crosswalk on State Route 36 (SR 36) in Plumas County. Plaintiff, a minor suing through her mother Lorri Shafer, as guardian ad litem, alleges that a dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code, § 835)[1] makes defendant California Department of Transportation (the State) liable for her injuries. Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of the State, arguing the trial court improperly excluded expert opinion, ruled that prior accidents were not relevant unless similar, and ruled that negligence by any user of public property defeats a claim of dangerous condition of public property.
We conclude plaintiff fails to show evidentiary error and misconstrues the trial court’s ruling, which applied the law correctly. The trial court did not err when it found no triable issues of material fact as to the existence of a dangerous condition.
We affirm the judgment.

Defendant, Deaudre Foster, purports to appeal after he pled no contest to drug charges on January 24, 2012. Sentenced on the same date, his notice of appeal was not filed until April 12, 2012. We noted the appeal may be untimely. We have a duty to raise the issue of our own jurisdiction on our own motion and thus issued an order to show cause re: dismissal. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) We appointed counsel, allowed briefing and scheduled oral argument solely on the dismissal issue.
Defendant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) It was filed more than 60 days after he was sentenced. Thus, his appeal must be dismissed. (People v. Pritchett (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 190, 195.)
The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant and appellant E.M. (father) appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his daughter M.M. Father’s sole contention on appeal is that reversal is mandated because the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Finding no merit to father’s appeal, we affirm the order.

An information, dated June 9, 2010, charged Joseph Michael Nuno with two counts: (1) meeting a person he believed to be a minor for lewd purposes (Pen. Code, § 288.4, subd. (b))[1]; and (2) possessing matter depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct (§ 311.11, subd. (a)). According to the preliminary hearing transcript, Nuno communicated with an undercover police detective, whom he believed to be a 14‑year‑old girl, in a chat room for more than a month, arranged to meet her and came to the meeting place. A consensual search of Nuno’s computer and cellular telephone revealed sexually explicit content and images of underage girls, which the detective believed to constitute child pornography. On December 21, 2010, Nuno pleaded no contest to the charge under section 288.4, subdivision (b). On February 16, 2011, the trial court dismissed the remaining count, suspended imposition of sentence and placed Nuno on formal probation for five years. As conditions of probation, the court directed that Nuno serve one year in the county jail and upon release to maintain residence as approved by his probation officer and to keep his probation officer advised of his residence at all times.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan Chase) appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of Dixie Jara's employment claims. We conclude, upon de novo review, that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to enforce the entire agreement rather than severing the unconscionable provisions. We affirm.

Defendant Jimmy D. Pham was charged by information with one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), in addition to gang enhancement allegations (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). Defendant filed a motion for pretrial discovery of evidence of misconduct by the arresting deputies, alleging that his oral and written confessions were coerced by police misconduct. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).) The trial court denied the motion, finding that defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested discovery.

Reginald S. Pagaling (Husband) appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to modify and/or terminate the $5,800 in spousal support he pays to his former wife, Teresa Pagaling (Wife) each month. He contends the trial court abused its discretion because he has been paying support for 11 years, after a 15-year marriage. We affirm.

Defendant Taylor Junior Carter appeals his conviction for one count of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). Defendant contends that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike his strike priors and sentence him to less than 25 years to life for the sale of 10 pills of Vicodin, and (2) his due process rights were violated because he was not advised his presumptive second strike case was going to be elevated to a 25-years-to-life case after he elected to go to trial. We affirm.

A modification decision.

Petitioner Mary F. is the mother of William D. and James D. She petitions for writ review of a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanent plan selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Petitioner claims that this order was not supported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion in light of the “symbiosis of medical issues” that she faced during the review period which impacted her level of participation in the case plan.
We conclude that the court’s orders are supported by substantial evidence and it did not abuse its discretion in setting the section 366.26 hearing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ review.

Warren G. Haley (appellant) appeals after the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to six years in state prison. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the judgment.

Appellant was placed on probation in 2008 after pleading guilty to a charge of attempted murder, a charge accompanied by allegations of involvement with a street gang in San Francisco. In 2011, the superior court revoked his probation after it was alleged, and the court found, that he had been present in a proscribed area of San Francisco both wearing his prior gang colors and in the company of another person also wearing those colors. Appellant appeals the revocation of probation, but we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court and hence affirm its order.