CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Ziyad Abid Asliwa of two felony counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code,[1] § 459) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). It found true allegations that the charged burglary was within the inhabited portion of a building (§ 460) and that a person other than an accomplice was present in the residence at the time the alleged offense occurred (§ 667.5, subdivision (c)(21)). The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted Asliwa formal probation. In part, it ordered as a condition of probation that Asliwa serve 365 days of custody with 38 days of credit. Having reviewed the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Asliwa. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Darin Durel Blockton pleaded guilty to selling cocaine and possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a), 11351), and admitted he had a prior narcotics conviction (id., § 11370.2, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12).[1] Sentenced to an aggregate term of 13 years in state prison, he appeals.
Defendant contends his prior conviction admissions must be reversed because he was not properly advised of his constitutional rights. He further contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request that the court exercise its discretion to dismiss the prior narcotics conviction enhancement. We shall affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Jeffrey Boyd Wall of domestic violence, and he admitted a prior strike and service of three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a); 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12.) He was sentenced to state prison for 11 years and appeals. He contends the trial court should have excluded evidence of his prior domestic violence against the victim, and the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial after the victim mentioned his parole status several times while testifying.
Because the evidence of prior incidents of domestic violence was properly admitted, and there was no prejudice to defendant by the victim's mention of his parole status, we shall affirm.

Jennifer Anderson's dead body was found hanging in the garage of the Sacramento home she shared with her husband, defendant Kier Anderson. He was charged with her murder. The issue at trial was whether Jennifer's death was a homicide or suicide. The People presented evidence defendant was a controlling husband who had convinced Jennifer to enter into a three-way sexual relationship with him and another man named Joel Steele. Steele and Jennifer developed their own relationship and rejected defendant and his cross-dressing female persona, Claire. Jealous and insecure, defendant strangled Jennifer to death and then staged her death to look like she killed herself. The jury believed the People's version of events and found defendant guilty of first degree murder.
Defendant appeals, raising the following two contentions: (1) the court erred and his counsel was ineffective in allowing the jury to hear evidence of the state of his marriage, his sexual practices, and â€

Anthony Karl Watson appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of perjury (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a))[1] and the trial court's findings that he previously had been convicted of 10 robberies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and had served four prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). After striking nine out of ten of the Three Strikes convictions and two out of four of the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison terms, the trial court sentenced Watson to 10 years in prison. We affirm.

Lamont K., the father of Laila K., appeals from the order declaring the child a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300. The juvenile court placed the child in the home of the mother, L.L., with the provision that the father not live there. We affirm.

Jose V. appeals from the juvenile court's disposition order requiring him to attend a 52-week domestic violence program after the court sustained allegations in a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b),[1] alleging he had physically abused his four children, seven-year-old Jose V., Jr., five-year-old Pedro V., two-year-old L.V. and one-year-old Jesus V., and their half-sibling, 12-year-old Carlos C., and had an unresolved history of alcohol abuse. Jose contends the court erred in ordering him to participate in the domestic violence program, which was not part of the proposed disposition plan to which he had agreed in mediation with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department), without expressly advising him he had a right to withdraw his no contest plea and to request a fully contested jurisdiction hearing. We affirm.

D.T., a minor, appeals from the juvenile court's sustaining a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1] alleging he committed a single count of misdemeanor battery, and the dispositional order directing his placement in a closed suitable placement facility.

D.G., the minor, appeals from the August 18, 2010 adjudication and disposition orders. The juvenile court found the minor committed simple battery (Penal Code § 242), a misdemeanor, and sustained the July 23, 2010 Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. The minor also appeals from the October 4, 2010 disposition order which ordered him to be placed home on probation. The order also revoked a previous order for a deferred entry of judgment, entered after the minor admitted to a felony charge of second degree commercial burglary (Penal Code § 459) in a February 13, 2009 petition. We affirmed the August 18, 2010 and October 4, 2010 orders.

Jose V. (father) appeals from the order adjudicating his son, Sebastian V. (Sebastian), a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and placing Sebastian in out-of-home placement.[1] He contends the adjudication and disposition were not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Plaintiff Anthony T. Johnson appeals the judgment of dismissal entered in his lawsuit against Donald Schweitzer and Casey Marticorena ("defendants") following the trial court's grant of their special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16 (the "anti-SLAPP motion"). Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Crystal A. (â€

Jeannell D. ("Mother") appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders in the dependency proceedings concerning her daughter Jamie D. and sons M.D. and L.M.
Keith W., who is M.D. and L.M.'s father, appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning those children. We affirm all the challenged orders.

Plaintiff Law Offices of Nejadpour and Associates appeals the trial court's order awarding defendant Judith Gonzalez her attorney fees on a prior appeal. Because Ms. Gonzalez was not the prevailing party at trial in the lawsuit considered as a whole, she may not recover attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033 and Civil Code section 1717. Consequently, we reverse the order.