CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant, Jason Lee Mitchem, executed a change of plea form, waiving his constitutional rights on November 5, 2010, pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.[1] Appellant pled guilty to a felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)).[2] Under the terms of the plea agreement, appellant would receive a prison term of eight months imposed consecutively to his sentence in case No. F09906557, an unrelated action.
The same day that appellant pled guilty, the court imposed a prison term of eight months, which was made consecutive to appellant's sentence in the unrelated action. In August 2011, appellant obtained an amended abstract of judgment from the trial court increasing his conduct custody credits to match his actual custody credits. Appellant received 214 days in total custody credits.
Appellant's original brief was stricken upon a request from appellate counsel. Appellant filed a new brief on September 29, 2011, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After review of the record, we affirm the judgment.[3]

J.G. (mother) and J.M. (father) appeal the termination of their parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26. Mother and father filed separate briefs on appeal. Mother appeals as to her children, Joel G., Natalie M., and N.M. (the children), and father appeals as to Natalie M. and N.M. only.[2] Father and mother contend that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). We affirm.

In this appeal, S.M., defendant and appellant (hereafter father), challenges the trial court's order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] terminating his parental rights to his two daughters, A.M. and D.M. Father contends we must reverse the order because (1) he did not receive proper notice of the date to which the trial court had continued the selection and implementation hearing, and (2) the trial court's findings that the girls are adoptable are not supported by substantial evidence because the social worker's report does not include information regarding the prognosis for and treatment of various purported medical and developmental issues.
We disagree with father on both issues and therefore we will affirm the order terminating his parental rights.

Defendant and appellant Alison Sarceno (defendant) appeals after she pleaded guilty to one count of second degree commercial burglary. Defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment, asserting that her attorney failed to inform her of the actual immigration consequences of her plea. She argued that, under Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) ___ U.S. ___ [130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284], she should be entitled to withdraw her plea based on incompetence of counsel. The trial court denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment. Defendant appeals, urging that the trial court failed to give proper accord to Padilla. We affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Shea Eaglin appeals an order denying his application for a preliminary injunction enjoining foreclosure on his residence.[1] He contends that Wells Fargo's notice of trustee's sale failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Code section 2923.5, which we discuss below. (All further statutory citations refer to the Civil Code.)
Finding no abuse of discretion or error in the trial court's interpretation of the statute, we affirm the order.

On September 2, 2009, an information charged defendant and appellant Laura Jean Braden Virgil with leaving the scene of an accident without rendering reasonable assistance to an injured person she struck and without providing her identifying information, a violation of Vehicle Code[1] section 20001, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1); misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in an accident causing injury, a violation of section 23153, subdivision (a) (count 2); and misdemeanor driving with a blood alcohol level over 0.08 resulting in an accident causing injury, a violation of section 23153, subdivision (b) (count 3).

A jury found defendant and appellant Oscar Enrique Espinosa guilty of one count of engaging in sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, count 1)[1] and two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act with a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a), counts 2 & 3). At sentencing, defendant argued that the sentences on counts 2 and 3 should be stayed under section 654, but the trial court found that at least three distinct acts had occurred. The court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 10 years, plus 25 years to life.
On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.20.1, since the instruction violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process, a jury trial, presentation of a defense, and confrontation. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Robert Anthony Pastel appeals his conviction on multiple counts. He contends that instructional error requires reversal of his conviction on one count and on two enhancements, and that Penal Code section 654 precludes imposition of unstayed sentences on both of two counts. As to the latter contention, we agree.

During a drive-by, gang shooting on June 15, 2007, defendant Narciso Torres (defendant) fired his gun at a rival gang member, Ruben Flores, Jr. (Flores, Jr.), who was driving home. Defendant appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1)[1], discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (§ 246; count 2), and unlawful participation in a street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3). The jury also found true the allegation that count 1 was committed for gang purposes (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). The jury rejected allegations that defendant personally discharged a firearm when committing counts 1 and 2 (§§ 12022.53, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), and 667). The jury also rejected the gang enhancement as to count 2 (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to life with the possibility of parole.

A modification decision.

Jose Guadalupe Uribe entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of committing a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)).[1] In exchange for the guilty plea, the prosecution agreed to dismiss five other counts of committing a lewd act on a child, two counts of oral copulation by one over 21 years on a person under 16 years (§ 288a, subd. (b)(2)), two counts of oral copulation of a person under 18 years (§ 288a, subd. (b)(1)), two counts of sodomy of a person under 16 years (§ 286, subd. (b)(2)), and two counts of sodomy of a person under 18 years (§ 286, subd. (b)(1)). The parties stipulated to a prison term of six years.
The trial court sentenced Uribe in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain.
Uribe obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)

On February 15, 2011, Reece Peter Holliday was convicted of one count of burglary of an inhabited dwelling in which a person was present. (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 459, 460, 667.5, subd. (c)(21). On April 19, 2011, Holliday was sentenced to five years' formal probation. Holliday was released on probation on April 20, 2011, and arrested for potential probation violation on April 27, 2011.
On August 8, 2011, following an evidentiary hearing, Holliday was found to have violated his probation. On August 31, 2011, Holliday was sentenced to the low term of two years.
On appeal, Holliday first claims that he did not violate his probation. Second, Holliday claims that he did not receive proper notification of the alleged claims of violation in accordance with due process. As we explain, we conclude that the trial court properly held that Holliday violated his probation conditions and that he received proper notification of the allegations. The judgment is affirmed.

Tarek L. Posey entered a negotiated guilty plea to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) in case No. SCD234778.[1] The court revoked probation for a prior guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in case No. SCD203453. The court sentenced him to the agreed upper five-year prison term for the robbery conviction and a concurrent one-year four-month term for the possession of a controlled substance conviction. His request for a certificate of probable cause, his Marsden[2] motion and his motions to withdraw his guilty plea to robbery were denied. Posey appeals. We affirm the judgment.

By ordinance respondent City of San Diego (City) prohibits nude entertainment establishments from operating between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Appellant William McClelland operated such an establishment during the prohibited hours and, after a number warnings, City revoked his nude entertainment police permit. The revocation was upheld in an administrative hearing, but stayed on the condition McClelland observe all laws and ordinances, including City's hours of operation limitation, for 12 months. Notwithstanding the stay, McClelland challenged the revocation by way of a petition for a writ of mandate, which the trial court denied.