CA Unpub Decisions

Noemi A. appeals from the order declaring her a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) by reason of her having attempted to burn property (Pen. Code, 455). Custody of Noemi A. was taken from her parents and she was ordered suitably placed. Court affirm the juvenile courts order.

Minor J.D.s mother, E.D. (mother), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. According to mother, there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that the parental visitation exception in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply to the termination of her parental rights.
Court hold that the juvenile courts finding that mother had failed to establish the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) exception was supported by substantial evidence. Court therefore affirm the order terminating her parental rights.

This dispute arises out of a public works project in which contractor West Bay Builders, Inc. (West Bay) hired subcontractor Kamran & Company, Inc. (Kamran) to install food service equipment in a facility operated by the State of California (State). In February 2002, the State experienced problems with the equipment that went unresolved and eventually prompted suit against West Bay. West Bay in turn sued Kamran for breach of contract and indemnification due to Kamrans refusal to provide warranty repairs or a defense against the States lawsuit. Kamran cross-complained against West Bay for withheld payment on the project and against equipment manufacturer, Carrier Corporation. The trial court dismissed Carrier Corporation on summary judgment--a ruling that Kamran has not appealed. After the State and West Bay reached a settlement agreement, only the dispute between West Bay and Kamran remained.

Defendant John Charles Larrison appeals from an order revoking probation, which Court construe as an appeal from the ensuing judgment imposing a sentence after revocation of probation. Probation was originally granted following a conviction on one count of a sex offense against a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and two counts of child abuse ( 273a, subd. (a)), pursuant to a plea of no contest. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking probation due to his poor economic status, which left him unable to pay for the court-ordered treatment programs for sex offenders and child abusers. Court shall conclude the trial court did not reke probation due to defendants economic status. Rather, the trial court used the evidence of defendants failure to search for a job (which was also a condition of probation) to reject defendants claim that his failure to participate in the treatment programs was attributable to lack of resources. Court shall affirm.

Carmen P. appeals orders terminating her parental rights to her children, Elizabeth P., Angelica P. and Manuel P. She contends the juvenile court erred by finding Elizabeth is adoptable. She also asserts the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) and the sibling bond exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v) apply to prevent termination of her parental rights to Angelica and Manuel. court affirm the orders.

A jury convicted defendant Jose Duran of first degree murder (count 1Pen. Code 187, subd. (a))and found true an allegation that he had caused the death of the victim as a result of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle ( 12022.55). The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 31 years to life consisting of an indeterminate term of 25 years to life on count 1 and six years consecutive on the enhancement. On appeal, defendant contends that substantial evidence fails to support his conviction for murder. In addition, defendant maintains the court erred in imposing an unauthorized six-year consecutive term for the enhancement, because, at the time of the murder, the statute provided for only a five-year sentence. The People concede, and Court agree, that the sentence on the enhancement must be amended to provide for a five-year consecutive term. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant and appellant Jorge Acevedo seeks reversal of a jury conviction, because he claims the trial court erroneously admitted incriminating statements he made to a Riverside County Sheriffs Department deputy in violation of his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).

Carlos Guerrero (defendant) argues that his trial counsel was ineffective when he did not request a jury instruction that defendant believes might have resulted in a more favorable outcome for him. Court will affirm.

On March 29, 2007, defendant was observed towing a big ship cable down a gravel road with her truck. The witness who observed the truck drove past her and then noticed that the cable was one of the cables he and the victim keep on their properties for fire abatement work. The chain on the gate to the victims property had been cut, and the cable had been cutting a big groove in the road starting on the other side of the gate. The witness turned around and caught up to defendants truck and confronted defendant and her passenger, who claimed to have found the cable on the road. The witness told them to wait for the police. They did not wait. However, the witness was able to write down the license plate number. Defendants truck bed had a lot of stuff in it, including windows and equipment. The witness may have originally told the police he saw a generator, but at trial he could not clearly remember a generator; instead he thought he had seen what could have been a generator but could also have been a compressor. The cable was later found in front of another neighbors house further down the street.

Defendant and appellant, T.P. (Father), appeals from the May 15, 2008, orders of the juvenile court concerning Fathers visitation with his only son, C.P. Father claims the court (1) erroneously failed to order meaningful visitation for Father by impermissibly delegating complete discretion whether to allow visitation with C.P. to C.P.s therapist, Billie King, and (2) deprived Father of due process in refusing to allow Father to cross-examine social worker Terry Greenstein (SW Greenstein) at a May 15 hearing on an order to show cause (OSC) for contempt for failing to enforce the courts existing November 2006 visitation order. court find no error and affirm the May 15 orders.

Defendant and appellant John Manuel Fragoso appeals following the revocation and termination of his probation. He seeks a remand for resentencing because he contends the trial court violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel at his sentencing hearing. He also argues the trial court imposed an aggravated prison term based on improper factors. Because he believes the record shows the trial court was biased against him, defendant requests to be resentenced by a different judge under section 170.1, subdivision (c), of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Defendant and appellant Leo Shawn Zimmerman pled guilty to willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a), count 1 in case No. FVI802224),[1]dissuading a witness by threat ( 136.1, subd. (c)(1), count 3 in case No. FVI802223), and two counts of making criminal threats ( 422, counts 1 & 2 in case No. FVI802223). Defendant contends, and the People agree, that two prison priors should have been stricken rather than stayed. Court affirm and modify.

This is the third appeal in this case. We summarized the facts of the case in more detail in the original appeal. The essential facts are that defendant used a handgun to rob a restaurant in April 2004. During the robbery, defendant pointed the handgun at the host, customers, a food server, and the manager of the restaurant. One of the customers was a retired police officer who was carrying a revolver in his fanny pack. Fearing for his life, the officer pulled out his service revolver, shot defendant, and kept the revolver pointed at him until police arrived. As a result of the gunshot wound, defendant was treated and then released from the hospital.

Defendant and appellant Moises Ramirez appeals from a jury verdict; he was found guilty of a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a))[1]and a lewd act by force upon a child under the age of 14 (288, subd.(b)(1)). Court affirm.