CA Unpub Decisions

J.H. (father) and A.C. (mother) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to now two-year-old T.K. on the ground there was insufficient notice given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Father also appeals denial of his motion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise noted) seeking to have the child placed with his mother L.G. (grandmother). Grandmother files her own appeal claiming the court failed to comply with the requirements of the relative placement statute. (§ 361.3.) All parties join in the others' briefs. Finding no error Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Seferina Sandoval Torres of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found she personally used a gun in committing the crime (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). It also found defendant was sane at the time of the murder. She was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison.
Defendant raises a single issue, that the court erred in failing to give a pinpoint instruction that she could be found not guilty by reason of insanity even if she was only temporarily insane when committing the crime. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Automotive Wheels, Inc. (AWI), appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict for plaintiff Brea Imperial, Inc. (BII). The jury found AWI breached a contract granting it a license to store equipment in BII's industrial building and committed various torts by leaving equipment and contamination in the warehouse.

Defendant Julio Cesar Palomino appeals from an order of commitment finding him to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq., the Sexually Violent Predator Act.[1] He claims the order of commitment must be reversed because the petition for recommitment was based upon a standardized assessment protocol that was not properly promulgated as a regulation under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq.). He argues that, if the improper regulation issue was not properly preserved, then he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. In addition, defendant makes several constitutional challenges to the current version of California's Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA).
Court affirm the order committing defendant as an SVP, except as to the portion committing him for an indeterminate term, which we reverse with further directions.

Defendant and appellant James Henderson, Jr., pled guilty to possessing cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5.) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was placed on probation. Defendant challenges the imposition of a requirement that he register as a gang member pursuant to Penal Code section 186.30. The People contend the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine defendant's crime was gang related. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Christian Jude Buckle of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664; count 1),[1] assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 3). The jury also found: the count 1 attempted murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated (§ 664, subd. (a)); defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon--a hammer in counts 1 and 3 (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)); defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence in all three counts (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)); and defendant had two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request to represent himself and that the sentencing minute order and abstracts of judgment do not reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment. Court affirm with directions to correct the minute order and abstracts of judgment.

This appeal arises out of Darren Edward Foster's plea of guilty to one count of selling cocaine base and proceeds in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

A jury convicted Rick William Renfro of robbery (Pen. Code,[1] § 211), and spousal abuse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The trial court later found true two prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). Renfro was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for the robbery conviction and a consecutive 25-year-to-life term for the spousal abuse conviction.
Renfro appeals, challenging only the sentence imposed. He contends the trial court did not understand its discretion to strike the prior convictions. We are satisfied the trial court fully understood the scope of its discretion and properly exercised it. We will therefore affirm the judgment.
Since Renfro does not challenge the admissibility or sufficiency of the evidence to support his current convictions, we will not set forth the traditional statement of facts. Suffice that the events in this case arose as a result of a continuing relationship between Renfro and his former wife, Renee Gould. In February 2005, Renfro significantly abused, strangled and threatened to kill Gould.
Several hours later Renfro forced Gould to go with him to the bank and withdraw money from her account. He also removed a ring from her finger.

Michael Rene Littlejohn entered a negotiated guilty plea to assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2))[1] that inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and admitted the allegation he had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) (the three strikes law). The court sentenced him to a stipulated nine-year prison term: the three-year middle term for assault with a firearm, doubled under the three strikes law, plus a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement. Littlejohn appeals. Court affirm the judgment.

Kelly Rose Page pleaded guilty to assault with "non-strike force likely to cause great bodily injury." (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)[1] The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on formal probation for three years, conditioned in part on her payment of victim restitution. The trial court also awarded her eight days of presentence credit, consisting of six days of custody credit plus two days of behavior credit under provisions of former section 4019, which were then in effect. At a subsequent restitution hearing, the trial court ordered her to pay $31,094.55 at $27.50 per month for the victim's medical expenses.

A jury convicted Charles Lara Rodriguez of first degree murder of Carlos Rios. (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a).) It found true allegations that he personally used a deadly weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)); and committed the murder in furtherance of gang activity (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life without probation.
Rodriguez contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by retaining a juror who had committed misconduct. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Kathryn E. M. Brown was sued by her former family law attorney, plaintiff and respondent Barbara J. Weiser, for unpaid legal fees arising out of a contested dissolution proceeding. Brown responded with her cross-complaint for damages for breach of contract, fraud, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty. The matter went to jury trial and the verdict awarded Weiser contract damages in the amount of $57,500, plus attorney fees and costs to be determined. Brown was not awarded any relief on her cross-complaint. Later, the court granted Weiser's motion for an award of $50,250 attorney fees, prejudgment interest from the date the action was filed in the amount of $10,743.84, and costs of suit.
Brown appeals the judgment, contending the trial court erred in several respects regarding Brown's requests for production of bank records and "bank statements" of trust accounts from her former attorney, Weiser. Specifically, she argues a previous stipulation on the matter was not properly enforced, her subpoena for such bank documents and statements was erroneously quashed shortly before trial, and the trial court should have granted her motion to dismiss Weiser's action, on the same grounds of nonproduction of required bank statements.

Appointed counsel for defendant Johnnie Davis, Jr., asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Court find no arguable error and no concerns regarding presentence credits. Court will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant David Samuel Griffin asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no concerns regarding presentence credits. Court will affirm the judgment.