CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Tuan Anh Mai of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459-460, subd. (a); all statutory references are to the Penal Code unless noted). We appointed counsel to represent Mai on appeal. Counsel filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised this court he found no issues to support an appeal. We provided Mai 30 days to file his own written argument. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him. After conducting an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we conclude there is no basis to reverse the judgment.

Defendant Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company appeals the denial of its motion to exonerate bail and its motion for relief from forfeiture. We reverse the orders of the trial court. The bond was posted after David Allen Benson was convicted of misdemeanors. Pursuant to Penal Code section 977, subdivision (a)(1) (all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated) because defendant was charged with misdemeanors only, he was entitled to appear by counsel unless the court had ordered him to appear personally pursuant to section 977, subdivision (a)(3). But the record does not indicate the court did so before ordering the bond forfeited. Because we reverse on this ground, we do not address Lumbermen's additional arguments.

After a jury convicted defendant Arturo Ortiz of two counts of second degree murder (Pen. Code § 187, subd. (a)) he made a motion for new trial, which the court denied. The court sentenced him to a 15-years-to-life term for each count, to run concurrently.

Del Cerro Mobile Estates (Del Cerro) appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained a demurrer filed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Placentia and its city council (the City) to Del Cerro's first amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandate. Del Cerro challenged the adequacy, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.),[1] of the City's environmental impact report (EIR) concerning a planned railroad grade separation project. These projects â€

In December 2001, the truck that defendant Michael Mann was driving struck a vehicle stopped at a driver's license checkpoint conducted by Buena Park police officers, and almost struck an officer. Defendant sped away from the checkpoint and down a cul‑de‑sac where the truck he was driving hit a fence and struck a police car before ultimately coming to rest. Defendant's blood tested positive for cocaine, opiates, and â€

Appellant Marie Chantal McDonough was committed to a state hospital in 2000, after having been found not guilty of by reason of insanity in a felony prosecution. In 2008, the director of the Metropolitan State Hospital (MSH) filed a semi-annual interval report (Pen. Code, § 1026, subd. (f); all statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated) recommending appellant be placed in outpatient treatment. (§ 1603, subd. (a)(1).) The court conducted a hearing on the issue. All testifying experts concluded appellant should be placed in outpatient treatment. The court found the details of the outpatient program lacking and denied outpatient status.

Petitioner, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] hearing as to her daughter, Jessica. We conclude the petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

Lori S. (mother) appeals from orders terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her three children.[1] She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the children were likely to be adopted. On review, we disagree and affirm.

Howard argues that (1) the record contains an insufficiency of the evidence of intent to kill (with reference to the attempted murder) and malice aforethought (with reference to the assault) and (2) the court's exclusions of evidence and refusals of proffered instructions denied him due process.

Three times in one day, Norteño gang member David Hernandez fired a gun at two Sureño gang members or associates to settle a score with a Sureño who once shot at him. A jury found him guilty of assault with a firearm, criminal threats, and shooting at an occupied vehicle for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. On his first appeal, he argued two discovery issues, an insufficiency of the evidence issue, and a sentencing issue. We remanded for resentencing on the shooting at an occupied vehicle but otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Hernandez (Dec. 11, 2009, F055972 [nonpub. opn.].)[1] On appeal from the judgment after resentencing, he now argues a sentencing issue, a custody-credits-recalculation issue, and an abstract-of-judgment issue. We order recalculation of his custody credits and correction of errors in the abstract of judgment but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Appellant, Gonzalo Lugo Tafolla, was charged in an information filed on December 1, 2009, with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a), count one), driving with a blood alcohol level at or above .08 percent (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b), count two), and driving without a driver's license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a), count three). There were special allegations that Tafolla's blood alcohol level was .15 percent or greater and that he had four drunk driving convictions in 2002 and two prior drunk driving convictions in the 1990's.

After Louis Clifton Trimble and his girlfriend smoked crack cocaine together, he pulled out a gun and demanded $80 to get back to Oakland. She said she had no money. He accused her of having sex with his cousin and shot her four times at close range. A jury found him guilty of attempted murder and attempted robbery. On appeal, he argues prosecutorial misconduct, instructional error, ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial error, and cumulative error. We affirm.

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the response filed by real party in interest, and petitioner's reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

In this case, we review an order of the trial court denying reunification services to I.F. (Father) and J.L. (Mother). The trial court denied services on the basis that Mother and Father[1] had caused severe harm to N., that N.'s two half-siblings were therefore also at risk, and that it would not benefit the children to offer services. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] §§ 300, subd. (e), 361.5, subd. (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7).)[3] Mother challenges the order with respect to the half-siblings of N., E., and D. Father challenges it with respect to his natural child, D.