CA Unpub Decisions

On August 12, 2008, Sacramento police officers saw defendant Robert Lee Williams in a neighborhood known for drug activity. Defendant was stopped and the officers asked to see his identification. After checking their records, the officers learned that defendant was a Penal Code section 290 registrant who had failed to register within five business days of his birthday, in violation of Penal Code section 290.012. Accordingly, defendant was arrested and charged with violating his registration requirements. (Pen. Code, 290.018, subd. (b).) It was further alleged that defendant had two prior strike convictions under Penal Code sections 667.5, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12. The judgment is affirmed.

T. O. (appellant), the mother of M. W., C. W. and L. W. (the minors), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.)[1] Appellant contends the juvenile court erred by failing to find an exception to adoption based on a beneficial parental relationship with the minors. Court shall affirm.

M. W. (appellant), the mother of D. W. and G. W. (the minors), appeals from the juvenile courts orders terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant contends the juvenile court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a hearing after appellant indicated that she required substitute counsel. For the reasons that follow, Court shall affirm.

A jury found Greg Long guilty of robbery (Pen. Code, 211). The court sentenced him to the three year middle prison term. Long appeals. Court affirm.

In this family law case, Jill Nelipovich appeals from the trial court's ruling characterizing the house in which she lived during her marriage to Anthony P. Nelipovich as Anthony's separate property, and determining that Anthony did not breach any fiduciary duty to Jill with respect to the house. As Court will explain, Court conclude that the ruling from which Jill appeals is a nonappealable interlocutory order, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal because Court lack jurisdiction over it.

M.G. appeals following the dispositional hearing in the dependency case of her daughters, Brianna P. and Valeria E., and her son, Christian E. M.G. contends the jurisdictional finding is unsupported by substantial evidence and the court erred by removing the children from her custody. Court affirm.

Crystal G. appeals orders terminating parental rights to her children, N.G. and S.G., under Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 366.26. She also appeals orders summarily denying her section 388 petitions for modification to extend reunification services and place S.G. with her. Court affirm the orders.

On March 3, 2008, the San Bernardino County District Attorneys Office filed an amended information charging defendant and appellant Ismael Aguilar with driving under the influence (count 1) and driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or greater (count 2) under Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivisions (a) and (b). With respect to each count, the information also alleged great bodily injury enhancements under Penal Code sections 12022.7, subdivision (a), and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8), and a serious or violent felony prior within the meaning of Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). On March 11, 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of the two driving under the influence charges and found untrue the great bodily injury enhancements. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the serious or violent felony prior to be true. On April 15, 2008, the trial court denied defendants Romero motion and sentenced defendant to six years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that his conviction for driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or greater is not supported by substantial evidence. For the reasons set forth below, Court shall affirm the judgment.

On August 6, 2007, the San Bernardino County District Attorneys Office filed a felony complaint against defendant and appellant Nichole Marie Adams (defendant); it charged defendant with one count of forgery under Penal Code section 470, subdivision (d). On November 8, 2007, defendant pled no contest to the forgery count, with the understanding that she would receive 120 days in county jail, with eligibility for the weekender work-release program. On December 13, 2007, defendant was sentenced to supervised probation for three years and 60 days in county jail as a term of probation, with eligibility for the weekender work-release program (probation term No. 1).
On April 17, 2008, defendants motion to reinstate the weekender work-release program was denied, and a probation revocation hearing was set. On May 29, 2008, an evidentiary hearing was held regarding defendants failure to report to a scheduled work-release program. The trial court found defendant to be in violation of probation term No. 1. The court revoked defendants probation, and reinstated it, with modifications. Under probation term No. 1, as modified, the court ordered defendant to spend 180 days in jail, straight time. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation. For the reasons set forth below, Court shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant contends his sentence of 40 years to life in prison amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Court affirm.

A jury convicted Adam Christopher Lueras of attempted sexual penetration of a minor by a foreign object (Pen. Code, 289, subd. (i)) and sexual battery (id., 243.4, subd. (e)(1)). The jury found Lueras not guilty of sexual penetration by foreign object of an unconscious victim (id., 289, subd. (d)) and sexual penetration of a minor by a foreign object (id., 289, subd. (i)).
The trial court sentenced Lueras to five years formal probation and 365 days in jail. He is required to register as a convicted sex offender and never to have contact with the victim, Jane Doe.

A jury found defendant Bryan Lamar Webb guilty of second degree commercial burglary, grand theft and conspiracy to commit a crime. The jury also found it to be true that all three crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The court sentenced defendant to six years in prison. Substantial evidence supports the gang enhancements. Court affirm.

J.D. (father) appeals the juvenile courts Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 orders in the consolidated dependency cases of his six children. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were likely to be adopted and that none of the statutory exceptions to a termination of parental rights applied. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) The court then terminated fathers parental rights and approved a permanent plan of adoption for the six children. ( 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) Father claims the court committed two errors: (1) finding the children were likely to be adopted ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)); and (2) not finding father maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). Court affirm, as there is substantial evidence in the reports submitted by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) supporting the courts findings and orders.

Plaintiff and cross-defendant, Rebecca Pestarino and defendants and cross-complainants, Chris L. Carneghi and Sherry Hall are co-owners of 66 acres of real property adjacent to Portola State Park in San Mateo County. Hall and Carneghi claimed that Pestarino committed waste on the property by illegally grading a road, digging up a pasture, and pushing dirt into a seasonal creek. The trial court found that, by the time of trial, the property had recovered from the excessive tractor work, that its market value was not any less than it would have been absent the work, and that Pestarino had paid for all reasonable remediation of the damage. The court also found, however, that the work had disrupted the natural state of this wooded and rural property, thereby diminishing its value to Hall and Carneghi during the time it took to be restored. The court awarded Hall and Carneghi $28,500 each as compensation for that injury. Pestarino appeals. She argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the award. Court agree and reverse.