CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant seeks review of a dispositional order of the juvenile court, challenging both the jurisdictional determination and ultimate commitment to a county ranch facility. Appellant was determined to be a ward of the court after an evidentiary hearing on an allegation in a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 of sale of base cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)).
Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende brief, certifying that counsel has been unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also has submitted a declaration confirming that appellant has been advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the courts attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, Court have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Court find no arguable issues and therefore affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in detail in the first opinion and in Prospect. Court incorporate by reference the factual and procedural background section of Prospect. The following is a brief summary of the facts.
Prospect is a delegate of health care service plans (plans) and is statutorily obligated to pay for emergency medical services provided to patients who have subscribed to those plans (Prospect members). In general, Prospect members are provided medical services by health care providers who have a contractual relationship with Prospect. However, Prospect members may seek emergency medical care from emergency room physicians who do not have a contract with Prospect. When that occurs, Prospect must reimburse the non-contracted health care providers who provided services to Prospect members.

A modification decision.

On October 19, 2006, Special Agent Supervisor Rigoberto Polanco (Polanco), Detective Ernie Collaso (Collaso), and three other law enforcement officers were conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. Polanco, an officer of the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, was the team supervisor. He had 19 years experience as a law enforcement officer, including the last 10 years for the Bureau, during five of which he had been a supervisor. He had had extensive training and experience in narcotics investigations, had been personally involved in over 200 narcotic related investigations, including investigations of major Mexican and Columbian trafficking organizations throughout the United States, and had made more than 1,000 narcotics related arrests. Forty to 50 of these investigations involved bag exchanges of money or drugs carried out in public places such as shopping mall parking lots. He had been trained in counter surveillance methods and in the types and varieties of secret compartments utilized by narcotics traffickers to transport money or drugs. Polanco had been an instructor at the California Justice Training Center for five years on such topics as surveillance and investigation techniques, and had also been an instructor on major investigation techniques for the California Narcotic Officers Association. He had testified in court as a narcotics expert between 10 to 15 times.

A modification decision.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Byron Green (defendant) of one count of burglary (Pen. Code, 459) (count 1) and one count of making a criminal threat ( 422) (count 2). On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for burglary because the evidence at trial established that the apartment he entered was his own home; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for making a criminal threat because the evidence at trial established that his threat lacked immediacy and that the victim, Cynthia Green (Green), was not in sustained fear; (3) his sentence on count 2 for making a criminal threat should be stayed pursuant to section 654; and (4) the trial court erred by imposing a penalty assessment and surcharge on a restitution fine. Court conclude that the last two arguments have merit, and order the judgment modified accordingly. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Appellant was sentenced to the low term of two years in state prison in the 1988 case. He began serving this sentence in February 1989. He was released from state custody on March 28, 1990 and began serving a 14-month federal sentence. On
March 25, 1991, appellant was released from federal prison.
The crux of appellant's complaint is that his plea agreement stated that his state sentence could be served concurrently to any federal sentence. Instead, he was required to serve the federal sentence consecutively.
On December 12, 2001, appellant filed a "motion" in the trial court challenging his plea. On December 26, 2001, the court denied appellant's request for relief. On September 12, 2002, the court denied a second motion by appellant alleging a breach of the plea agreement.

Appellants Janusz Dabrowski and Stefan Czarnecki sue their former employer and its president for failing to deliver stock purportedly promised to them in exchange for their loyal service and value to the corporation. Each cause of action in the complaint was based on an alleged oral promise by their employer to increase appellants' ownership in the corporation from 5 percent to 15 percent each. Following the filing of the action, respondents delivered and appellants accepted precisely what they prayed for. Nonetheless, appellants resisted respondents' motions for summary adjudication. At the hearing on the motion, appellants sought to amend their complaint to allege mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Deeming the proposed amendment to be a wholly new action on a wholly new theory, the trial court denied leave to amend. We affirm.

Appellant Deshion McIntyre was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of committing a lewd act on a child, fifteen-year-old B.B., in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1). Appellant admitted that he had suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170 (the "Three Strikes" law) and section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced appellant to the midterm of two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the Three Strikes law.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his prior conviction and in imposing the middle term. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.

While on probation in another case, defendant and appellant Walter Govan (defendant) was arrested and charged in a new case with possession for sale of a controlled substance, resulting in a preliminary revocation of his probation in the other case. Prior to trial, defendant, who was represented by appointed counsel in both cases, moved the trial court for permission to proceed in pro. per., and the trial court granted that motion. On the day of trial in the new case, the trial court held a formal hearing on the probation violation in the other case, found that defendant had violated the terms of his probation in that case, sentenced him to four years, and dismissed the new case.
On appeal, defendant argues that, in ruling on the probation violation, the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. According to defendant, the Farretta waiver form he signed applied only to the new case, not the probation revocation proceedings in the earlier case. Therefore, defendant argues that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel as to the probation revocation proceedings.
Court hold that the record shows that defendant intended to and did waive his right to counsel in both cases. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment of conviction

Leo Duran Fitch appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of four counts of first degree, residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459), and one count of the possession of burglars tools ( 466). The trial court sentenced Fitch to four years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Miguel Avila appeals from the trial court's denial of his Penal Code section 1016.5 motion to vacate his conviction in case number A980264, for failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea in that case.
Court reverse the trial court's order finding that appellant was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea, and remand this matter to the trial court for a hearing to determine if appellant has met the other requirements for setting aside his guilty plea.

E.S. (the mother) appeals from an October 21, 2008 juvenile court order sustaining a June 23, 2008 Welfare and Institutions Cod section 300 petition as to her son M.H. (the infant). The infants two older siblings (M.R. and M.H., Jr.,) are dependents of the court pursuant to an amended section 300 petition which was sustained in January 28, 2008. The mother argues there was insufficient evidence to support the petition as to the infant because there was no evidence that the conditions still existed which required the dependency action for the older siblings. Court disagree and affirm the dispositional order but correct a clerical error.

Plaintiff and appellant Mary Jones (Jones or plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging ten separate causes of action against defendant and respondent Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick) and its predecessor in interest, Octagon Risk Services, Inc. (Octagon) (collectively defendant), third party administrators of workers compensation benefits for the Regents of the University of California (Regents). The trial court sustained the demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. court hold that the claims are either within the exclusivity of the Workers Compensation Act or are otherwise defective. Court also hold that plaintiff has not shown an abuse of discretion in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend because plaintiff has not supplied an adequate record on appeal.