CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Mandaz Johnson contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his Romero[1] motion and erred by applying the Penal Code[2] section 2933.1 limitation to his section 4019 local custody conduct credits. The People contend the trial court did not abuse its discretion but agree that the application of the section 2933.1 limitation was error. We modify the judgment to award full section 4019 conduct credits and otherwise affirm.

The juvenile court found that defendant and appellant N.M. (minor) had committed assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2))[1] for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). Minor was on probation following a prior admission that he possessed a concealable firearm. (§ 12101, subd. (a).) The juvenile court committed minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum period of eight years eight months, consisting of the midterm of three years for the assault, five years consecutive for the gang enhancement, and an additional eight months consecutive (one-third the midterm) for the firearm possession. Minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion because less restrictive alternatives existed and, according to minor, the juvenile court failed to consider the goals of juvenile sentencing. We affirm.

Following a jury trial, defendant Virgil Anthony Millon was convicted of two counts of unlawful possession of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code,[1] § 12280, subd. (b).) The trial court declared the convictions to be misdemeanors and placed him on summary probation. The court imposed a restitution fine of $100 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, as well as the applicable court security fee under Penal Code section 1465.8, and a criminal conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373. Defendant appeals, contending: (1) regardless of how many assault weapons he possessed, he could only be convicted of a single offense; (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury;[2] (3) his counsel was ineffective;[3] (4) the prohibition against possession of assault weapons violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms; and (5) the reasonable doubt instruction is unconstitutionally flawed.

In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held that review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his custody of a child or his status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny appellant's requests to review the record for error and to address the Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
Citing Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 U.S. 75, 88, William's counsel asks this court to order counsel to brief any arguable issue. The request is denied.

In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his [or her] custody of a child or his [or her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny their requests to review the record for error and to address their Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
Citing In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, Lawrence's and Miranda's counsel also ask this court to exercise its discretion to provide Lawrence and Miranda the opportunity to file supplemental briefs in propria persona. The requests are denied.

Citing In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, Christian's and Cecilia's counsel also ask this court to exercise its discretion to provide Christian and Cecilia the opportunity to file supplemental briefs in propria persona. The requests are denied.

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court erred by sentencing Poteat to 15 years to life without considering probation, for which he was statutorily eligible; and (2) whether the court should have granted Poteat's request for a certificate of probable cause.
We granted Poteat permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Poteat has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

Ruben S., Sr., appeals following the dispositional hearing in the juvenile dependency case of his two-year-old son, Ruben S., Jr., (Jr.) and his nearly one-year-old daughter, Angie S. (together the children). Ruben contends the court erred by denying him reunification services and by continuing a no-contact order. We affirm.

Following a revocation of probation, the court sentenced Aaron Marin Ramirez for violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), possession of a controlled substance. Prior to sentencing, Ramirez had spent time in local custody both before and after January 25, 2010, the effective date of amended Penal Code[1] section 4019. At sentencing, the court used a two-tiered system to calculate Ramirez's conduct credits. For time he served prior to January 25, 2010, the court used section 4019 as it read before its amendment, giving Ramirez two days of conduct credit for every six days of custody. For time spent in custody after January 25, 2010, the court used amended section 4019 to calculate credits, giving him two days of conduct credit for every four days of custody.
Ramirez asserts this was error because (1) under section 4019's plain language, the court should have used amended section 4019 to calculate all of his credits; (2) amended section 4019 applies retroactively; and (3) the court's calculation of credits denied him equal protection. We conclude the amendments to section 4019 apply retroactively to this case and remand the matter to the trial court to recalculate Ramirez's conduct credits and to modify the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Appellant D.F., the father of the three-and-a-half-year-old minor V.F., appeals from the juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)[1] He contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that V.F. was specifically adoptable. We shall affirm the juvenile court's orders.

Following a jury trial, defendant Wayne Laverne Rose was convicted of three counts of forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)),[1] two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), three counts of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)), two counts of burglary (§ 459), and a single count of attempted rape (§§ 664/261, subd. (a)(2)), along with one-strike enhancements for committing the sex offenses during the commission of a residential burglary (§ 667.61, subd. (d)(4)). He was sentenced to 127 years to life in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) stationing a support person next to the victim while she testified violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation; (2) it was error to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 362; (3) CALCRIM No. 1190, given by the court, is unconstitutional; and (4) there is insufficient evidence to support several of the one-strike enhancements and one of his burglary convictions. We shall affirm.

A seven-year-old girl from Kern County; an eight-year-old girl from Tulare County; and the eight year old's cousins from San Joaquin County, aged six and seven, reported to their respective mothers and then to the police that defendant Jeremy Scott Eickenhorst had either touched or asked to see their â€

Petitioner Roxanne B. (Mother), mother of Mariah C., appeals the order terminating reunification services at the six-month review hearing. Mother contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights and abused its discretion by denying her motion to continue the hearing, which she could not attend on the scheduled date because she was hospitalized. Finding no violation of due process or abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Appellant D.T. was placed home on probation after the juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that D.T. had committed a second degree robbery, in violation of Penal Code section 211. D.T. filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment.
This court appointed counsel to represent D.T. on appeal. On April 19, 2011, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record for arguable contentions. D.T. was advised by letter, dated April 19, 2011, of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. D.T. has not responded to the court's invitation for further briefing.