CA Unpub Decisions

H. L., mother of minors D. W. and T. W., appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional order removing D. W. from mother's custody. (The court also removed T. W. from mother's custody, but she does not appeal from that order.) Mother contends there is no substantial evidence of a â€

Appointed counsel for defendant Lester Charles Russell has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Court shall affirm the judgment.

Appellant D.L., mother of D.J. and J.L. (the minors), appeals from orders of the juvenile court adjudging the minors dependent children and removing them from her physical custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 361, 395; section references that follow are to this code.)
Appellant contends substantial evidence does not support the court's finding that the minors were at risk of serious harm or that they would be in substantial danger if left in her care. Court affirm the juvenile court's orders.

In June 2008, defendant Waldo Curtis Buscall pleaded guilty to one count of selling or transporting marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). In exchange, defendant received a four-year prison term, imposition of which was stayed; he was then ordered to serve three years of formal probation. Defendant subsequently violated his probation, his probation was revoked, and he was ordered to serve the previously stayed prison term. Defendant appeals from that order.
Finding no error, Court affirm the court's order.

Defendant, a plastic surgeon, entered pleas of nolo contendere to two counts of sexual exploitation of a patient. Seven additional counts that involved other victims of serious sex offenses were dismissed with a Harvey[1] waiver. He was sentenced to three years and eight months in prison. On appeal, he contends his motion to suppress should have been granted because three of the search warrants were not supported by proper oaths and there was no probable cause to search for evidence relating to Angela R. Defendant also challenges his sentence, contending the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term and failed to provide reasons for a consecutive term. Court modify defendant's presentence custody credit and otherwise affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Shad Smith of grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).)[1] Granted probation, defendant appeals. He contends (1) the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of an accomplice's prior felony convictions, (2) in so ruling, the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him, (3) insufficient evidence supports the trial court's restitution order, and (4) the probation order requires correction to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment. Court will order the probation order corrected in certain respects. Court shall affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Cynthia Joan Witts guilty of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),[1] and found defendant Sean Patrick Myers guilty of the same offense (ibid.) and petty theft with a prior (§ 666). The trial court sustained allegations that defendant Myers had a previous conviction for petty theft and had served a prior prison term. (§ 667.5.)
The court denied the motion of defendant Witts to reduce her offense to a misdemeanor (finding her conduct indicated a degree of sophistication, and citing her failure to take full responsibility for her actions). It nonetheless found hers to be an unusual case and granted formal probation (conditioned inter alia on a 120-day jail sentence), suspending imposition of judgment. It determined she had one day of custody credit. The court also imposed various enumerated fines and fees. (It did not award direct restitution because the victim recovered all of its property.) The court set the reasonable value of defendant Witts' legal fees at $600, as to which she reserved her right to a hearing on her ability to pay.

A jury found defendant Louis Paul Sota guilty of molesting his two daughters and niece. The court sentenced him to prison for 60 years to life plus 8 years. On appeal, he raises 11 contentions encompassing alleged constitutional violations, evidentiary errors, instructional errors, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing error. Finding no merit to these contentions, Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Teresa S. Rice (Teresa) appeals from the trial court's order for interim child support to be paid by her husband, Spencer N. Rice (Spencer), for the couple's two minor children after she unsuccessfully sought to modify the order to increase Spencer's monthly support obligation. Teresa[1] contends the order must be reversed because the method used to calculate the support payments was improper, the monthly support payments should have been higher, the enforcement provisions of the order should have been self-executing, and the order should have included child care expenses and attorney fees. We disagree and affirm the interim child support order.

Appellant Jennifer St. Dennis was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction in violation of Penal Code[1] section 666. The trial court sentenced appellant to two years in state prison.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred prejudicially in informing the jury that she had a prior felony conviction. We see no prejudice to appellant from this error. Appellant also contends that her conviction under section 666 is no longer valid in light of recent amendments to that section which increase to three the number of prior theft-related convictions needed to trigger the felony sentencing provisions of section 666. Respondent concedes that the amendments to section 666 apply retroactively to appellant. We agree. Appellant admitted only one prior qualifying conviction. Accordingly, we reduce her conviction to petty theft in violation of section 484, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. Because appellant has served more than six months in custody, we direct the trial court to order appellant released on this case only from the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation without a period of parole.

Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's orders granting defendants' anti-SLAPP motion and awarding attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to enjoin defendants from â€

Appellant Roberto C. (Father) is the father of Sebastian C., age 5, determined to be under dependency jurisdiction due to domestic violence between Father and Sebastian's mother, Edith B. (Mother). Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying his request to represent himself at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. We conclude that the court had sufficient ground to deny Father's last-minute request for self-representation, and that to the extent any error occurred, it was harmless.

Following resentencing, Bill Lennan appeals a judgment of conviction of conspiracy to commit murder and burglary (count 2) and attempted murder (count 3), with findings that a principal used a firearm to commit the crimes and that the crimes were committed to benefit a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a), 664, 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 186.22, subd. (b).)[1]
We appointed counsel to represent Lennan in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) On January 25, 2011, we advised Lennan that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received a response from him contending that his resentence is excessive, the jury misapplied the instructions, and that count 2 rests upon legally inadequate theories. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Lennan's contentions.

The juvenile court sustained a two-count petition in which the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or the department) alleged two minors were put at risk of physical harm by Mariah L.'s (Mother) mental and emotional problems (count b-1) and history of substance abuse (count b-2). The juvenile court detained the minors from Mother and placed them with their father pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).[1] Four months later, the court denied mother reunification services, ordered permanent placement with the father, and terminated jurisdiction. Mother contends no evidence supports the court's findings or orders. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction and its orders removing the children, denying reunification services, and terminating jurisdiction.