CA Unpub Decisions

G.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional order denying reunification services on the ground of mental disability. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b)(2)" Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b)(2); further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code" Welfare and Institutions Code.) In addition to attacking the order, mother claims the Indian Child Welfare Act 1901 et seq. (ICWA)) was not complied with. Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff, Raymond C. Foss, was convicted of 10 counts of sexual molestation against his stepdaughter, convictions that we affirmed in an opinion certified for partial publication. (People v. Foss (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 113.) The primary evidence supporting the convictions was testimony of the victim, and her initial reports to Florida police officers and Florida Department of Child and Family Services personnel, made while Foss and the victim were living in Florida.

A jury convicted defendant John Travis Bakker of using a false compartment with the intent to transport a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.8, subd. (a); count one), possession of methamphetamine (id., § 11377, subd. (a); count two), transportation of methamphetamine (id., § 11379, subd. (a); count three), possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor (id., § 11357, subd. (b); count four), possession of a smoking device, a misdemeanor (id., § 11364; count five), and possession of methamphetamine for sale (id., § 11378; count six). The jury found that defendant committed count six while released from custody. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.) In bifurcated proceedings, the court found allegations of a prior drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)) and a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) to be true.

Appellant Brian Bruce (father) appeals from a trial court order establishing a parenting schedule for his three children and requiring him to pay child support to the children's mother, Leslie Gray (mother), in the amount of $635 per month beginning in January 2009. For the reasons that follow, Court shall affirm.

After his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied,[1] defendant Michael Setrack Saroian pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted he had two prior convictions pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subd. (a). Sentenced to eight years in prison, he appeals. He contends the procedures used by the trial court in considering evidence relating to a confidential informant violated his constitutional rights. He also contends his motion to suppress evidence should have been granted. Court shall modify defendant's custody credits and otherwise affirm.

This case involves a dispute between two attorneys over the division of fees. A client hired plaintiff Christopher J. Olsen to represent her in a personal injury action. Plaintiff subsequently brought in associate counsel, defendant Joseph F. Harbison III, doing business as Law Offices of Joseph F. Harbison & Associates. The client soon fired plaintiff and retained defendant. The case settled for $775,000.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant to recover attorney fees by asserting claims for quantum meruit, breach of contract, fraud and deceit, intentional interference with contractual relationship, and imposition of constructive trust. In several rulings, the trial court disposed of these claims in favor of defendant.
Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment and challenges each of the trial court's determinations. We affirm the judgment.
Facts and Proceedings
In 1998, Kathleen Klawitter was injured at a golf course. She signed a contingent fee retainer agreement for plaintiff to represent her in a personal injury action.

C.V., the father of the two children, appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental rights termination order. The father contends the parental rights termination order must be reversed because of noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. The parties, including counsel for the children, have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to allow compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions and for immediate remittitur issuance. We accept the parties' stipulation. The parties agree there was noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. We concur in their assessment in this regard. Further, the parties agree the parental rights termination order must be reversed and remanded to permit proof of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. Our ability to accept a stipulated reversal is controlled by our prior decision in the case of In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382. The present case involves reversible error; the failure to present substantial evidence of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and its related California provisions. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472.) Because the parental rights termination order would be reversed under any circumstances, a stipulated reversal advances those interests identified in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for the reasons we explained in the case of In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pages 379-382. (See Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329-1330.) If proper notice is provided and no tribe asserts that the children are of Indian descent, the parental rights termination order is to be reinstated. If a tribe asserts that the child is of Indian descent, the juvenile court is to proceed in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions.
The Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 order is reversed and the cause is remanded for compliance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements and related state provisions. This opinion is final forthwith. The remittitur is to issue forthwith.

Alma G. appeals from the order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, terminating her parental rights to her daughter Angela. On her appeal, Court affirm.

Defendant, Anthony Randolph, Jr., purports to appeal after he pled nolo contendere to two counts of robbery. (Pen. Code,[1] § 211.) We noted that defendant had not secured a probable cause certificate and the notice of appeal did not fully comply with both section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b). Court have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) Hence, we issued an order to show cause re dismissal and set the matter for oral argument. Court allowed defendant time to brief the dismissal issue.

Eugene R. (father) appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to his son, Ruben O. (Ruben). He contends: (1) it was an abuse of discretion to deny father's request for a continuance of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing and (2) he was denied due process as a result of that hearing going forward in his absence. Court affirm.

Lamar Jacobs appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to carjacking committed on August 17, 2007, in violation of Penal Code section 215, subdivision (a). He was sentenced to the midterm of five years. The trial court suspended execution of that sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for five years. The terms of probation included that he not use or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons including firearms or knives. On December 18, 2008, appellant waived his right to a formal revocation and admitted violating the terms and conditions of his probation. The trial court revoked and reinstated appellant's probation.

Isaias A. (father) appeals from a juvenile court order denying him reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10).[1] He contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that father had not made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of his daughter, Sofia A. (Sofia, born Feb. 2010).
Because we find no abuse of discretion, Court affirm.

Kevin Smith appeals his judgment of conviction of transportation and possession of marijuana. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On August 9, 2010, we notified appellant of his counsel's brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and appellant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
On April 21, 2009, appellant was charged with codefendant Daniel Noel Shaw, Jr., (Shaw) in a two–count felony information, of transporting marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a) (count 1), and possession of marijuana for sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359 (count 2).

Defendant, Jeramy Clifford Gerardo, appeals following his nolo contendere plea to first degree burglary and subsequent probation violations. (Pen. Code,[1] § 459.) The trial court ordered defendant be transferred to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a diagnostic study. (§ 1203.03.) Thereafter, defendant was placed on formal probation and ordered to complete a residential treatment program. Defendant was later twice found in violation of probation. Defendant was sentenced to the mid-term of four years in state prison. Defendant argues that the trial court improperly failed to award pre-sentence credits for the days he spent in a residential treatment program and imposed the middle rather than the low term. Court remand to allow the trial court to determine defendant's presentence credits and otherwise affirm the judgment.