CA Unpub Decisions

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained an allegation that appellant T.C., then 12 years old, committed felony robbery. The court adjudged T.C. a ward of the court, placed him on probation, and ordered him to complete 40 hours of community service and pay a $100 restitution fine. On appeal, T.C. contends that there was insufficient evidence identifying him as the perpetrator of the crime. Court disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Counsel appointed for defendant Jan Montes has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. Court have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

By an amended information filed in April 2009, the Contra Costa County District Attorney charged appellant Joseph Menchaca with possession of heroin for sale and possession of Vicodin for sale, with allegations of two prior convictions and having served a prior prison term. A jury convicted appellant of possession of heroin for sale; the court found true the prior conviction and prison term allegations[1] and sentenced him to six years in state prison: the midterm of three years for the possession for sale conviction and a consecutive three years for the prior drug conviction. Appellant challenges the admission into evidence of a prior criminal offense. Court affirm.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition of a seven-count information, appellant pled no contest to a charge of communicating with a minor in an attempt to arrange a meeting in order to engage in lewd and lascivious behavior. (Pen. Code, § 288.4, subd. (b).)[1] The trial court denied him probation and sentenced him to state prison for the lower term of two years. Appellant claims that (1) the denial of probation constituted an abuse of discretion and (2) the requirement that he register as a sex offender violated his constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Court disagree with both contentions, and hence affirm the judgment.

An insurance company issued a liability policy to the owner of a building. While the building was being remodeled by a construction company, a passerby was injured due to the construction company's negligence. The insurance company paid the proceeds of the liability policy to the passerby, and then filed the action from which this appeal arose, seeking subrogation against the construction company.
The trial court found that the construction company was an additional insured under an endorsement to the building owner's policy. The court also declined to reform the policy in that regard on the basis of the insurance company's contention that the construction company was included on the endorsement by mistake. Accordingly, the court concluded that the insurance company was not entitled to subrogation against the construction company. Court affirm.

Michael Ray Vaughn and Christopher Vaughn[1] appeal from convictions of various sex offenses. Michael contends that the court erred in imposing a full-term consecutive sentence for a count of sodomy, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. Christopher contends the evidence was insufficient to support one of his convictions. Court affirm.

Court are familiar with the background of this dispute through our review of a prior appeal in this action (Musaelian v. Adams (July 25, 2007, A112906) [nonpub. opn.] (Musaelian I)) and an appeal in an underlying action (Reiter v. Musaelian (June 30, 2006, A110100 [nonpub. opn.] (Reiter)). This case presents a limited issue for our consideration, and we need not recite the extensive history of the litigation among the parties. Warner, the appellant here, represented Musaelian during most of the proceedings in this case below.

After his Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence was denied, on March 3, 2009, appellant Erik Arthur entered no contest pleas to one count of transportation of a controlled substance (cocaine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) (count one) and one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance (cocaine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351 (count two). Appellant admitted that he possessed for sale 57 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine within the meaning of Penal Code section 1202.073, subdivision (b)(1).[1]
On September 10, 2009, the court sentenced appellant to the lower term of three years on count one and imposed, but stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, a one third the midterm sentence or two years on count two. However, imposition of sentence was stayed pending disposition of this appeal. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal the same day as he was sentenced based on the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. Court affirm.

In two separate prosecutions, defendant Juan Manuel Hernandez pleaded guilty to felonies. In each case, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation. One term of each probation order required defendant to serve time in county jail. The court subsequently revoked defendant's probation in both cases and imposed concurrent 16-month state prison terms after finding he violated Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a) (all further references are to this code) by possessing â€

Defendant Michael Dolores Lewis was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (b)). The court sentenced him to probation with a requirement he serve 90 days in jail. Defendant asserts prosecutorial misconduct based on questions eliciting alleged inadmissible evidence and, alternatively, ineffective assistance of counsel for his lawyer's failure to object to the challenged prosecutor's questions. Court find no error and affirm.

Respondent court sustained a supplemental petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387[1] as to petitioner's daughter, M., and discontinued reunification services. The court also set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the setting hearing and to direct the juvenile court to continue reunification services. Court will deny the petition.

C.O. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her daughter X.V. (child).[1] Mother contends the Fresno County Superior Court (juvenile court) should have addressed the issue of relative placement at the termination hearing. In her view, respondent Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) and the juvenile court have erroneously denied the child's paternal grandmother (grandmother) relative placement consideration since the outset of these proceedings. On review, Court disagree and affirm.

On October 22, 2008, appellant, Ivan Fernando Trujillo, was charged in an information with committing murder on November 18, 2007. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) Although appellant was a minor, the prosecutor charged him as an adult. The information also alleged a special circumstance for committing the murder to further the activities of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). The information also alleged appellant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C) & (b)(4)) and a gun enhancement for personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)).

On October 22, 2008, appellant, Ivan Fernando Trujillo, was charged in an information with committing murder on November 18, 2007. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) Although appellant was a minor, the prosecutor charged him as an adult. The information also alleged a special circumstance for committing the murder to further the activities of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). The information also alleged appellant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C) & (b)(4)) and a gun enhancement for personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)).
On August 18, 2009, appellant waived his constitutional rights and entered a plea of no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) and he admitted the gun use enhancement. On January 15, 2010, pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to prison for 11 years for voluntary manslaughter plus a consecutive term of 10 years for the gun use enhancement. Appellant received total custody credits of 904 days. The court imposed various fees and fines, including a $30 assessment fee pursuant to Government Code section 70373.
On appeal, appellant contends the imposition of the $30 assessment fee violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws because his offense occurred before the effective date of the statute.