CA Unpub Decisions

The juvenile dependency court entered orders terminating its jurisdiction over four dependent children, and referring the family to the family law court, where, in the words of the dependency court, â€

Terry W., Sr. (Terry) is a father who appeals from a juvenile dependency court order conditionally placing his three minor children in their mother's home after they were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court based on their mother's and stepfather's physical abuse of their older half-sibling. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 361.) Terry contends substantial evidence does not support the decision to return the three children to the mother's home. Court disagree, and affirm the judgment of the dependency court.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Daphne Ann Brenon pled guilty to two counts of felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) and one count of filing a false income tax return (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19705, subd. (a)(1)). A third count of grand theft was dismissed. The plea agreement contained a Harvey waiver. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).) Brenon challenges the trial court's order of restitution based on the dismissed count. Court affirm.

After Jason Yelinek and Robin Yelinek (collectively, the Yelineks) purchased a house from Robert Lane in 2004, they became dissatisfied with its construction. After Lane refused to engage in mediation, the Yelineks sued him for failure to make proper written disclosures, breach of implied warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. A jury found in favor of Lane on all causes of action, and judgment was entered accordingly. The trial court subsequently awarded Lane $49,575 in attorney's fees and $3,808.20 in costs.

Appellant Stacey B., the mother of C.B., M.B. and A.B. (the minors),[1] appeals from orders of the juvenile court finding the minors to be persons within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, and denying reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300 & 361.5.)[2]
Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b), and insufficient evidence to support the order denying reunification services. Mother also contends that the jurisdictional and dispositional orders must be reversed because the court-appointed guardian ad litem had no authority to waive the jurisdictional hearing. Mother further contends that, in denying reunification services, the court made no findings under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) or section 361.5, subdivision (e), and there is insufficient evidence to imply such findings. Court shall affirm the juvenile court's orders.

A jury found defendant David Paul Collom guilty of inflicting corporal injury on his wife, felony false imprisonment, and grossly negligent discharge of a firearm, and found that in committing the first two crimes he personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of five years in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury on felony false imprisonment and the great bodily injury enhancements and he received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to both of those instructional issues. He also contends there was insufficient evidence he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim during the commission of the false imprisonment, the admission of prior acts of domestic violence violated his constitutional rights to due process, fines and fees not orally pronounced but found in the court minutes and the abstract of judgment must be stricken, and imposition of the court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373 on the charge of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm violated the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.

Appellant Joseph B., father of the minor, Angel B., appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 364, 366.21, subd. (f) & 395.)[1] Appellant contends the court's termination of those services after placing the minor with her mother in a plan of family maintenance was an abuse of discretion. court shall affirm the juvenile court's order.

After a trial to the court, defendant Jefferson William Thames was found guilty of sodomy with a child under 10 years old, failure to register as a sex offender, and committing a lewd act upon a child under 14 years old. The court further found he had a prior conviction under the three strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12.) After denying defendant's Romero[1] motion to strike the prior conviction, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 67 years and 4 months to life in prison.

A jury convicted Travis Montgomery of conspiracy to rob and robbery of the Skyline Farms Market (counts 3, 4), conspiracy to rob and attempted robbery of the Eastridge Liquor Store (counts 5, 6), and possession of a firearm by a felon (count 7). The same jury convicted Matthew Henderson of counts 5 and 6. Montgomery and Henderson jointly assert the trial court abused its discretion by granting the prosecution's motion to consolidate the charges against them and another codefendant. Montgomery also challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions; (2) the trial court's use of prior juvenile court adjudications as prior strike convictions; and (3) the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss a prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
We reject the joint assertion that the trial court abused its discretion when it consolidated the charges and affirm the judgment against Henderson. We conclude there is insufficient evidence to support Montgomery's convictions for conspiracy to rob and robbery of Skyline Farms Market (counts 3, 4), and reverse Montgomery's judgment as to these counts. Court reject Montgomery's remaining contentions and affirm the balance of the judgment against him.

A jury convicted Lance William Green of the second degree murder of Jeffrey Gardiner (Pen. Code, §187, subd. (a))[1] and found true the allegation that he used a deadly or dangerous weapon, to wit, a knife. (§12022, subd. (b)(1).) The court sentenced him to 16 years to life in prison.
Green contends the trial court violated his constitutional right to a fair trial by erroneously excluding testimony from his proposed medical expert regarding the "grossly improper medical treatment" the victim received at a hospital prior to his death; and the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by arguing to the jury that the defense had failed to present medical expert testimony to refute that of Dr. Frank Sheridan, Chief Medical Examiner for San Bernardino County. Court affirm the judgment.

Mother Rebekah P. and father Sergio M., Sr. (Father), appeal from the judgment terminating their parental rights to their seven-year-old daughter, J.M.; their six-year-old son, Daniel; and their four-year-old son, Sergio, Jr. (Sergio). Rebekah contends that the court erred in declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination of her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)).[1] Father contends that the court erred by summarily denying his section 388 petition, in which he sought to have the children placed with him or, in the alternative, transitioned into his care, and that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) failed to conduct a diligent search for him, thereby depriving him of his due process right to notice of the proceedings. Father also contends that the Agency's adoption assessment was inadequate, and that the court erred in finding the children to be adoptable. Rebekah and Father join in each other's contentions. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Filipe Leiatatua Vave appeals his jury conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),[1] and corporal injury to a cohabitant with personal use of a deadly weapon (§§ 273.5, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). He claims the court's instructions to the jury on the reasonable doubt standard of proof were constitutionally inadequate. Court affirm.

We begin by defining the issues that John is raising on appeal.
A brief must â€

On June 12, 2009, an amended information charged defendant and appellant Kevin Antoine Jones with possession of marijuana for sale under Health and Safety Code section 11359. The information also alleged three prison priors and one strike prior under Penal Code sections 667.5, subdivision (b), 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).
A jury found defendant guilty as charged. Thereafter, defendant admitted the truth of the prior allegations. On July 31, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for four years eight months. On appeal, defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. For the reasons set forth below, Court shall affirm the judgment.