CA Unpub Decisions

Anthony R. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held under Family Code section 7822. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [his] custody of a child or his . . . status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny Anthony R.'s requests to review the record for error and to address his Anders issue. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
Anthony R.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

The twin daughters of defendant Roderick Markhams girlfriend testified that, when they were 13 years of age or younger, defendant raped them repeatedly. As a result, defendant was found guilty on five counts of aggravated sexual assault on a child. (Pen. Code, 269, subd. (a)(1).) A one strike multiple-victim special circumstance was found true. (Pen. Code, 667.61, subd. (e)(5).) Three strike priors were also found true. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 235 years to life in prison.

A jury found defendant Jose Guadalupe Avina guilty of committing two counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a), counts 1 & 2)[1]and that defendant had engaged in substantial sexual conduct with the minor ( 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)).[2] Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 10 years in state prison: the upper term of eight years on count 1, and a consecutive two years for count 2. On appeal, defendant contends (1) CALCRIM Nos. 223, 226, and 302 are erroneous, and even if this court concludes they are not erroneous as written, they were ambiguous, and it was reasonably likely the jury applied the instructions in a way that violated his state and federal constitutional rights; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing the upper term on count 1. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Gilbert Simental guilty of three counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) The jury also found true that defendant committed the offense against multiple victims within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5). Defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of 15 years to life. Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial courts failure to exclude his admissions to his church elders violated the penitential communication privilege. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant David Westley Jennings, Jr., guilty of battery on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1)), the lesser included offense of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) (count 1), and assault (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court thereafter found true that defendant had sustained one prior strike conviction. As a result, defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison. Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting statements the unavailable victim made to the investigating officer. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition, the response filed by the real parties in interest, and the reply. We have determined that the resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

On October 30, 2007, appellant, Frank Orosco Cordova, Jr., entered into a plea agreement, waived his constitutional rights, and pled guilty to one count of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)) in case No. 07CM7527. Appellant also admitted two prior drug conviction enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (c)).[1] On December 4, 2007, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation. On March 7, 2008, appellants probation was summarily revoked. Appellant was arrested on a bench warrant and he denied allegations that he violated the terms of his probation. On August 5, 2008, a first amended complaint was filed in case No. 08CM2266 alleging appellant possessed methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), count one), was under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a), count three), and had endangered a child (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (b), count four). The information alleged seven prior prison term enhancements ( 667.5, subd. (b)).

Defendant Antonio Alejandro Barboza was convicted of the first degree murder of Sam Chea. True findings were made that he vicariously discharged a firearm causing the victims death and that he committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang. He was also found guilty of street terrorism. The court sentenced defendant to 40 years to life in prison.
Daniela H. was 14 years old when she testified in May 2007. The previous September 11, she was waiting with a friend outside Century High School for Oscar Gonzalez,[1] who was the boyfriend of [her] friend. Daniela said he was taking a long time coming to pick us up so, we started walking and thats when we saw him that he was being jumped by a lot of people. She said, a lot of guys like six of them, seven they were just punching him, kicking him. She said the attackers were Asian.

In 2000, as part of a negotiated no contest plea to charges involving sexual offenses against a minor, defendant Reginald Tyrone Lewis was ordered to register as a sex offender under the mandatory registration requirements set forth in Penal Code section 290.[1] After a new criminal complaint was filed against him for failing to update his sex offender registration, Lewis successfully moved to dismiss that complaint, and the trial court vacated his mandatory registration requirement as unlawful under People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185. The trial court then ordered Lewis to register as a sex offender under the discretionary provision of section 290.006. On appeal, Lewis contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order him to register as a sexual offender under section 290.006. Court agree and therefore shall reverse.

In this consolidated marital dissolution case, Natalia A. Sidiakina attempts to appeal, in propria persona, from a judgment following an order granting summary judgment in favor of her (former) husband, Siamak Navid. She also purports to appeal from eight other orders. However, appellant has failed to show any error because she has failed to provide a reasoned argument and discussion of legal authority with appropriate citation to the appellate record.

In December 2006, the Solano County District Attorney charged appellant Antoine Ramont Carruth with the following offenses set forth in a consolidated information in case Nos. VCR176751 and VCR179180: possessing cocaine base for sale (counts 1 & 2); possessing methamphetamine (count 3); and destroying or concealing evidence (count 4). The information also alleged that appellant suffered a prior conviction for possessing cocaine base for sale; that he served a prior prison term; and was out of custody on bail when he committed the count 2 and 3 offenses.
Appellant admitted the prior conviction and the on-bail enhancement. A jury found appellant guilty as charged. The court sentenced him to seven years four months in prison: the midterm of four years on count 1; a consecutive one year four months (one-third the midterm) on count 2; a concurrent two-year term on count 3; two years for the on-bail enhancement; and three years stayed for the prior sales conviction and prior prison enhancements.
On appeal appellant claims Crawfor and evidentiary error; urges reversal without retrial of the count 1 trafficking offense, and asserts error in sealing a portion of the search warrant affidavit which led to his arrest on that count. Court affirm.

Respondent Michael Edward Rose (Rose) is a licensed clinical social worker who was subjected to professional disciplinary proceedings by appellant Board of Behavioral Sciences (Board) after he suffered three drunk driving convictions within 11 years. After the Board issued its ruling, Rose brought a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5) challenging the Boards decision suspending Rose from the practice of licensed clinical social work for a minimum of 30 days as a condition of his probation so that he can obtain and implement a psychiatric evaluation. The Alameda County Superior Court granted Rose the relief he requested, finding that Roses 30-day suspension was not warranted under these circumstances. The Board filed this appeal claiming the court erred in granting writ relief because he 30-day suspension as a condition of probation was not excessive and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. We agree with the Board, and therefore, reverse the judgment.

Brandale and Cory Quran Robinson, who are brothers, were charged with murder and second degree robbery. The information alleged as a special circumstance that the murder was committed in the course of a robbery. Cory was charged in both counts with personally and intentionally discharging a firearm.Court Appellants first trial resulted in a hung jury. At their second trial, they were convicted of all charges and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, plus the firearms enhancement for Cory. They appealed. Court reversed based on the erroneous exclusion of third party culpability evidence that had been introduced at the first trial. (People v. Robinson (Oct. 29, 2004, B163693) [nonpub. opn.].) That evidence concerned the possible culpability of three other men, Calvin Capers, Michael Reese, and Roland Bynum. The third party culpability evidence that was excluded from the second trial was presented at the third trial. Appellants were again convicted of all charges and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, plus the firearms enhancement for Cory. This appeal followed.
Brandale contends that his robbery-murder special circumstance was not supported by substantial evidence because he did not act with reckless disregard for human life. Cory contends that the trial court should not have given CALCRIM No. 371, on suppression of evidence. Appellants also raise two issues regarding DNA evidence.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the issues, Court find no error, and affirm the convictions.

jury convicted defendant Erika Bernal of second degree murder ( 187, subd. (a)) and assault on a child under the age of eight years causing death ( 273ab). The victim was defendants 21-month old son Jose. The trial court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life on count 2 ( 273ab) and imposed, but stayed pursuant to section 654, a sentence of 15 years to life on count 1 ( 187, subd. (a)).
In this appeal, defendant contends primarily that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct sua sponte on the theory of voluntary manslaughter. She argues that [reasonable interpretation of the evidence from [her] perspective was that for one tragic moment the heavy demands of raising two small children in a single room without the support of a husband or adequate money caused [her] to reach the breaking point and lash out with unexpected force from this provocation. Court disagree. As a matter of law, the evidence defendant relies upon does not constitute reasonably adequate provocation within the well-settled meaning of the law. Court therefore conclude that the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct upon voluntary manslaughter.
Secondarily, defendant attacks the trial courts decision to permit the prosecutor