CA Unpub Decisions

Appellants G.J., mother, and T.C., father of the minor J.J., appeal from the juvenile court’s orders denying mother’s petition for modification and terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 388, 366.26.)[1] Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her petition for modification, and improper limits on visitation compromised the order terminating her parental rights. Father joins in mother’s brief. We shall affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Shaneil Cooks has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) As we explain post, the abstract of judgment fails to accurately reflect the trial court’s judgment; further, the judgment must be modified because the custody credit award is deficient.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ayana Packard has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no errors and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Edgar Zavala Bringas entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he received five years of formal probation and a prison term of 10 years four months, stayed. After finding defendant in violation of probation, the trial court lifted the stay. Defendant now purports to appeal from his sentence, contending that the court abused its discretion by enforcing the plea agreement and, as a result, lifting the stay on the sentence previously pronounced.
Because defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, we shall dismiss the appeal. (Pen. Code,[1] § 1237.5.)

A jury convicted defendant Marvin Calvin Graves of receiving stolen property in case No. 10F3478. (Pen. Code,[1] § 496, subd. (a).) Based on his conviction, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation in case No. 06F8530.

After hearing his brother had been “jumped,” defendant, a Sureño gang member, joined his two older brothers and friends in a fight against three men wearing red. One was victim Samuel Sanchez. As the fight ended, Sanchez was mercilessly hit, kicked, stomped, and finally stabbed to death, while huddled on the ground in the fetal position.
Defendant was arrested two months later, after a traffic stop where a gun was found in the car. He was subsequently charged with Sanchez’s murder, as well as enhancements for gang benefit and personal use of a knife.
The jury convicted defendant of first degree murder, but deadlocked on the enhancements. The same jury also convicted defendant of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)) based on the traffic stop two months after the murder.
Sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, defendant appeals. He contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte on defense of another as an affirmative defense to assault or battery. He further contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his arrest for possession of a loaded gun after he agreed to plead guilty to the charge. He asserts the evidence was unduly prejudicial.
As we will explain, we find no error and shall affirm.

Patty C. (Mother), the mother of a child declared a dependent of the juvenile court in 2009, appeals from an order terminating her parental rights, arguing that the court should have found that the beneficial parental relationship exception applied and precluded termination of parental rights. Specifically, Mother argues that the juvenile court erred by refusing to allow her to testify regarding the reasons she missed visitation. She also contends the court erred by failing to ensure that all available evidence was admitted, namely, the reports prepared by a visitation monitor or the live testimony of that monitor. Mother also assigns as error the failure to consider placement of the child with her partner or with a maternal uncle.
We affirm. The trial court properly concluded that Mother failed to demonstrate that the beneficial parental relationship exception applied such that her parental rights should be preserved. In addition, the court did not err by approving the child’s continued placement with his foster parents. The child’s interests were best served by that placement and the request for relative placement was made when family reunification services were being terminated and there was no justification for changing the child’s placement.

L.G. (Mother) and R.V. (Father) appeal a judgment of the juvenile court declaring that their son Jose V. is adoptable and terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] We affirm.

Robert Pickering appeals the judgment entered after he pled no contest to four counts of commercial burglary (Pen. Code,[1] § 459). The trial court sentenced appellant to five years in state prison and ordered him to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $160 court security assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $120 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $20 DNA penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.7). The court also imposed and stayed a $200 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45) and awarded appellant 10 days presentence custody credit.[2]

In this dependency appeal, appellant Cesar N. (“Father”), appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and disposition orders pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code[1] section 395, contending that the orders removing his minor son Nathan N. (“Minor”), from his custody were not supported by substantial evidence. As we explain hereafter, the jurisdictional order is affirmed and the appeal from the dispositional order is dismissed as moot.

The County of Los Angeles (County) appeals the order granting the motion by respondents Bad Boys Bail Bonds and The North River Insurance Company (collectively Bad Boys) to set aside summary judgment on a forfeited bail bond and exonerate that bond. We reverse.

A jury convicted defendant, Johnathon Lee Smith, of: first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)); first degree residential robbery (§ 211); first degree burglary, person present (§§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)); and arson of an inhabited structure. (§ 451, subd. (b).) Defendant admitted the following allegations were true: he had sustained one prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12); he had sustained a single prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and he had served prior separate prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to a determinate term of 23 years consecutive to an indeterminate term of 55 years to life. Defendant argues: his murder conviction must be reversed because the trial court failed to instruct on voluntary intoxication as it relates to involuntary manslaughter; his arson conviction must be reversed because the trial court failed to give an aiding and abetting instruction; and a theft fine plus penalty assessments must be deleted from the abstract of judgment because the trial court did not orally impose any such fine. We modify the judgment, direct further limited sentencing proceedings and order correction of the abstract of judgment.

In January 2012, this court affirmed an order, entered in June 2011, denying father’s request to modify a final custody order that had awarded respondent Crystal Archer sole physical and legal custody of her then 17-year-old son and providing that visitation between the son and his father, appellant Derek Todd, would be at the discretion of mother with the agreement of the son. (Todd v. Archer (Jan. 19, 2012, A133211) [nonpub. opn.] pp. 3, 5-6.) In September 2011, while the prior appeal was pending, father filed a second modification petition seeking sole legal custody, primary physical custody and visitation for the Christmas holiday. Following a hearing in December 2011, the court denied father’s request. Father, appearing in propria persona, filed a timely notice of appeal. Mother has not filed a respondent’s brief and she has advised the court that she will not be participating in the appeal. We shall affirm.

Following a jury trial, appellant Socorro Sierra was convicted as charged of assault with a deadly weapon and violation of the personal liberty of another, but was acquitted of attempted murder. The jury also found that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. The trial court found true the allegations that appellant suffered two “strikes” and had served four prison terms. The court sentenced appellant to 15 years in prison plus 25 years to life. This appeal followed.