CA Unpub Decisions

Katrina V. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughters, Ka. S. and Ki. S. and her son, D.S. (together, the children). Katrina contends the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) to termination of parental rights. We affirm.

D.D. and Nathaniel K. appeal orders terminating their parental rights to their son, L.D., and referring the case for adoption. Nathaniel contends the court abused its discretion by not continuing the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 hearing to allow his counsel to receive discovery and to have additional time to prepare for trial. He also asserts that if D.D.'s appeal is successful, the order terminating his parental rights must also be reversed. D.D., joined by Nathaniel, asserts the court erred by terminating parental rights because there was not substantial evidence presented to support finding L.D. is an adoptable child, and the evidence showed she has a beneficial parent-child relationship with L.D. within the meaning of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), to preclude terminating parental rights. We affirm the orders.

Following a jury trial, defendant Donald Ray Hubbard was found guilty of stalking, assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of misdemeanor making annoying telephone calls. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years and eight months in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and making annoying telephone calls, and he is entitled to additional presentence conduct credits. We modify the award of presentence credits and affirm the judgment as modified.

Jennifer F. (mother) and Bobby G. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights as to the minor, J.G. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Mother contends the court (1) wrongly denied her section 388 petition, and (2) wrongly found the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption inapplicable. Father raises no issues on his own behalf, but joins in mother’s second contention. We shall affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Carlos Edwin Lynn 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 Mark Steven Williams pled guilty to numerous charges, including intimidating a witness (Pen. Code,[1] § 136.1, subd. (a)(2)), in exchange for an agreement that the remaining charge and enhancements would be dismissed and he would be sentenced to a term of six years eight months in state prison. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
Defendant appeals, claiming his conviction for intimidating a witness must be reversed because the trial court did not have an adequate factual basis at the time it accepted appellant’s plea to that offense. Concluding the error was harmless, we affirm.

Defendant Kenneth Allen Sharonoff was living at a homeless camp in Placerville when he shot to death another resident of the camp, 68-year-old Clark McCabe. A jury convicted defendant of one count of second-degree murder, one count of elder abuse resulting in death, two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of possession of ammunition by a felon. The jury also found various enhancement allegations to be true, including the personal discharge of a firearm resulting in death and the personal infliction of great bodily injury. Following a bifurcated hearing, the trial court found that defendant had been convicted of two prior strike offenses within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 70 years to life plus a consecutive determinate term of 10 years in state prison and imposed other orders.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his constitutional rights by (1) admitting into evidence two prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon for the limited purpose of establishing defendant’s intent to kill, and (2) failing to instruct the jury on the theory of imperfect self-defense as a means of mitigating murder to voluntary manslaughter. We disagree and affirm.

Joseph Anthony Williams appeals from the judgment entered following his pleas of no contest to two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),[1] during one of which he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). In addition, Williams admitted previously having been convicted of first degree burglary (§ 459) within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Williams to 19 years in prison. We affirm.

The juvenile dependency court issued jurisdictional findings to the effect that Ivan M., Sr. (Father) raped and sodomized and otherwise sexually abused a cohabitant’s eight-year-old daughter, and also raped the child’s maternal grandmother, in the family home. Based on his established sexually assaultive conduct, the court further found that Father’s one-year-old son was at risk of physical harm, damage, danger, and sexual abuse. Father appeals the finding that he poses a risk to his son. We affirm.

Universal Underwriters Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s order setting aside the default judgment entered against Howard Lee Randol, Jr. We affirm.

Manuel Vasquez appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to vacate or withdraw his no contest plea to violating Health and Safety Code section 11359 (possession of marijuana for sale). (Pen. Code,[1] § 1018.) Appellant contends the motion should have been granted on the ground his trial attorney provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to fully advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. Because appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause in accordance with section 1237.5, we dismiss the appeal.

The Compton Unified School District appeals from the trial court’s order quashing its subpoena of district schoolteacher Ronald Hoppe’s employee records from another school district where Hoppe once worked. The trial court quashed the subpoena because it was overbroad in relation to the district’s administrative proceeding to terminate Hoppe for improper sexual conduct with students. We agree and affirm the order.

Nylonda Sharnese appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing without prejudice her complaint against Affordable Legal Help, Inc., Edward Madison, Eugene Maryl Lerner, and WorldWin Marketing Corporation (WorldWin) (collectively respondents). The court dismissed the complaint for inadequate proofs of service. We reverse.

Appellant, a computer services company, was sued for causing a fire that damaged several businesses in a shopping complex. It cross-claimed for indemnity against respondent, contending that respondent, as the property manager for the shopping complex, was liable for any damages.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, which we affirm. Respondent met its initial burden in moving for summary judgment by making a prima facie showing that it was not responsible for the fire. Since appellant failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition, summary judgment was proper.