CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Y.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights over her son, Jaiden (born December 2005). Mother contends the order must be reversed because the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting that Jaiden be returned to her custody.[1] Mother further contends the order must be reversed because the parental exception to terminating parental rights set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applies.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother's section 388 petition. Mother failed to sustain her burden of establishing a change in circumstance and that granting her request for custody was in Jaiden's best interest. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that the parental exception to terminating parental rights did not apply. We therefore affirm the court's order.

Marlon Osorio appeals the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of two counts of first degree murder and ten counts of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder arising out of four separate shooting incidents. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664/187.)[1] As to each count, the jury found Osorio acted for the benefit of a criminal street gang and that he personally discharged a firearm, causing death or great bodily injury. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subd. (d).) The jury found true a multiple murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and, with respect to the two counts of murder, found Osorio intentionally killed the victim while actively participating in a criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)).
Osorio claims he was identified based on unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, he should have been provided counsel at a live lineup, and the trial court should have excluded from evidence his admission of gang membership and his possession of a knife at the time of his arrest.
We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

In this housing discrimination action, plaintiffs Mary Rivera Radell and her adult daughter Nicole Radell, who are of Puerto Rican ancestry, sued their condominium association, defendant Park Wilshire Homeowners Association (Association), and fellow condominium owners, defendants Murray Allen Morguelan and Jehuda Limor, for disparate treatment on the basis of sex, race, ancestry, and national origin in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) and federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHA) (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.). The Radells allege that defendants committed a series of discriminatory acts intended to diminish the presence of Puerto Rican women in their upscale condominium building, which resulted in Mary's forced resignation from the Association's board of directors (board) and Nicole's constructive eviction from her home.[1]

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187),[1] assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), along with related enhancements for personal firearm use causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d)), and infliction of great bodily injury during domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). Defendant admitted nine charged prior convictions.

A jury found defendant Ricky Demon Matthews guilty as charged of two counts of robbery (Pen. Code,[1] § 211). The trial court found true allegations that defendant had four prior felony convictions, for burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and voluntary manslaughter. The priors were alleged in two ways under section 667: under the five‑year enhancement specified in subdivision (a)(1), and as qualifying for Three Strikes treatment under subdivisions (b) through (1). However, the court then struck the Three Strikes allegations, but not the subdivision (a) allegations. It then sentenced defendant to six years in state prison for the two robberies, with 15 additional years for three of the subdivision (a) priors. Both sides appeal.

To facilitate a plea agreement, the juvenile court dismissed one count and added another to a wardship petition that was filed against respondent Jeffrey H. The prosecution objected to the court's actions, and on appeal it contends the court exceeded its authority in amending the petition on its own accord. Although Jeffrey does not dispute this contention, he argues the People's appeal should be dismissed because it is aimed at an order that underlies the court's decision to grant him probation. We find the appeal cognizable and reverse the order amending the petition.

Appellant, Thomas Randolph Adams, was charged in a criminal complaint filed January 13, 2010, with felony possession of methadone, a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), count one) and misdemeanor possession of a syringe (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4140, count two). The complaint alleged a prior serious felony conviction for attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 211)[1] pursuant to the three strikes law (§ 667, subd. (d)).

Sandra D. (mother) left her four minor children with her sister, Barbara M., on August 13, 2007, because mother and her husband Gilbert D. (father),[1] were homeless and without food. The following month, petitions were filed for Sherri M. (maternal aunt) and Joyce S. (maternal grandmother) to be appointed temporary guardians of the children. The court granted a temporary guardianship, followed by a permanent guardianship. At the request of Barbara M., the guardianship for the two older children, the girls, was dismissed and the girls were returned to mother and father. The proceedings as to Robert S. and Thomas D. continued, ending with an order declaring Robert S. and Thomas D. free from the custody and control of mother and father pursuant to Probate Code section 1516.5.[2] It is from that order that mother and father appeal asserting that they were denied due process in the proceedings leading up to and including the termination of their parental rights.[3]

Danielle K. (mother) and Robert G. (father) were married in August 2003 and divorced in 2006. They had one child together, K.G., one of the two minors subject to the dependency proceedings. After mother divorced father, she met appellant Colton L. (appellant) in 2007, and they had one child together, C.L., who is the other minor subject to the dependency proceeding. Father met and became engaged to Stephanie J., who has two young sons.
After their divorce, mother and father shared physical custody of K.G. In November 2009, mother transferred physical custody of K.G. over to father per their arrangement, and a member of father's family discovered a large mark on K.G.'s posterior. After K.G. was examined at Hanford Community Medical Center (hospital), Lemoore Police conducted an investigation, and the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) conducted a Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center (MDIC) interview of K.G. K.G. ultimately informed her interviewers that appellant bit her posterior and touched her â€

A jury found appellant James Hamilton guilty of possessing a sharp instrument while confined in a state penal institution (Pen. Code,[1] § 4502, subd. (a)), and returned true findings on allegations that he suffered four prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life under the three strikes law, consecutive to the sentence he was already serving, plus one year for the prior prison term. On appeal, appellant contends: (1) the trial court erred in allowing defense counsel to withdraw his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) over his objection; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to dismiss his prior strike convictions pursuant to section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). For reasons discussed below, we conclude the trial court's error in allowing defense counsel to withdraw the NGI plea over appellant's objection cannot be said to be harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a trial on appellant's NGI plea. If appellant is found NGI, the trial court shall take the proper steps under section 1026. If appellant is found sane, the court shall resentence him as provided by law. Our opinion today leaves undisturbed the jury's guilty verdict on the substantive offense and true findings on the enhancement allegations.

On or about March 5, 2009, the Labor Commissioner of the State of California filed an order in state case No. 04-45258 bm. The Commissioner ordered that appellant Michael Breazell take nothing by virtue of his complaint against respondents John Marquez and Cora Marquez,[1] each individually doing business as J & C Transport.
On June 12 and 26, 2009, the Fresno County Superior Court conducted a contested trial de novo of appellant's claim against the Marquezes.
On June 29, 2009, the superior court filed a judgment following the Labor Commissioner's order finding respondents delayed appellant's final wage payment by three days and ordering that respondents pay appellant a penalty under Labor Code section 203 of $465 ($15.50 x 10/hours per day x 3 days).
On July 30, 2009, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.[2

On February 6, 2008, the Merced County Superior Court consolidated case Nos. AF46191 and MF46761[1] pending against appellant Matthew Alan Grose, and the district attorney filed a first amended information charging appellant as follows: counts 1and 2 --lewd or lascivious act upon J.B., a child under age 14 (Pen. Code,[2] § 288, subd. (a)); count 3 -- false imprisonment of J.B. (§ 236); counts 4, 5, and 6 -- aggravated sexual assault upon J.B. (§ 269, subd. (a)(1)); count 7 -- lewd and lascivious act upon J.B. (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)); count 8 -- solicitation of the murder of J.B. (§ 653f, subd. (b)); count 9 -- attempted murder of J.B. (§§ 187, 664); count 10 -- solicitation of the murder of one C.J. (§ 653f, subd. (b)); and count 11 -- attempted murder of C.J. (§§ 187, 664).
On March 27, 2009, after numerous continuances, the court denied appellant's motion to set aside counts 9 and 11 of the first amended information on the ground the prosecution presented insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to hold him to answer (§ 995).
On June 23, 2009, jury trial commenced.

Petitioner M.A. (Mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services as to her 11-month-old daughter, V.R., and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating her services at the six-month review hearing and finding there was no substantial probability the child would be returned to her care within the next six months. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Edmundo Crespo (defendant) asserts here two sentencing errors: that the trial court improperly used a juvenile conviction as a â€