CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Andy Custodio entered a no contest plea to misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a dwelling house (Pen. Code, 602.5, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of felony counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)) and the agreement that any incarceration would be concurrent to his incarceration for unrelated offenses. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed probation and, as a condition of probation, ordered defendant to pay restitution for items that were stolen during the alleged burglary. In People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey), the California Supreme Court held that, where a plea is entered on condition that other counts be dismissed, it is an [i]mplicit term of the plea agreement (in the absence of any contrary agreement) that defendant will suffer no adverse sentencing consequences by reason of the facts underlying, and solely pertaining to, the dismissed count. (Harvey, at p. 758; see also Pen. Code, 1192.3.) However, Harvey does not apply where the dismissed counts were transactionally related to the count to which the defendant pleaded. (Harvey, at p. 758.) Here, the plea agreement did not explicitly indicate that defendant could be ordered to pay restitution based on the dismissed counts; that is, there was no Harvey waiver. The question before us is whether Harvey precluded the imposition of a probation condition requiring defendant to pay restitution based on the facts underlying the dismissed counts. Court hold that the probation condition did not violate Harvey in this case because the dismissed counts were transactionally related to the count to which defendant pleaded no contest. Consequently, Court affirm.

Defendant Derek Wong entered a plea of no contest to assault with the intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, 220) pursuant to a negotiated agreement. Defendant then brought a motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation. On appeal, defendant contends that his waiver of his constitutional rights was not knowing and voluntary, and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance.Court find no error and affirm.

These four consolidated appeals involve efforts of respondent City and County of San Francisco (City) to recover on a 2004 judgment in its favor relating to residential real property that was, after the initial judgment, serially transferred to appellant SkyHawk World Inc. (SkyHawk), then to Marlon Union Corporation, then to appellant Yoshabel Clements. Clements encumbered the property by deeds of trust in favor of various entities and individuals (including appellant Falco Borealis Corporation and appellant Angelo Macapinlac). Following notice to appellants and an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found the transfers fraudulent, voided them, and appointed a receiver, who sold the property. Appellants did not seek a stay or post a bond in their appeal from the order authorizing the sale of the property. After the sale, the City sought and received an order settling and approving the receivers final report and accounting, discharging the receiver, and exonerating the receivers bond. Appellants did not oppose the motion, nor have they filed an appeal from that order.

Daniel Elizalde (defendant) appeals from a judgment following a guilty plea to one count of second degree murder. He contends the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress a statement he made during a telephone call placed from a police interview room. He also contends the court erred in determining he was ineligible for a juvenile disposition. Court affirm the judgment.

In this case we again consider claims that the City of American Canyon (City) failed to comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)[1] in approving a commercial development located near the intersection of Highway 29 and Napa Junction Road in American Canyon. In American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v. City of American Canyon (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1062, 10661067 (American Canyon), addressing the Citys approval of Phase I and Phase II of the Napa Junction project, we held that the Citys determination that supplemental environmental review was not required following the addition of a Wal-Mart supercenter to Phase II was not supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 1083.)

Defendant Richard Jesus Valentine was convicted by a jury of one count of rape by use of intoxicants. He was sentenced to eight years and eight months of imprisonment. Defendants attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting our independent review of the record. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief. Court find no arguable issue and shall affirm.

Eugene Schneider (Schneider) appeals from an order approving and enforcing a settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.[1] Schneider was a former attorney for James Kahn (Kahn), the administrator of the estate of decedent Henry Kahn (decedent). Schneider contends the settlement is not enforceable because (a) one of the beneficiaries of the estate, Sari Pierre, was not personally present when the settlement was placed on the record in open court and allegedly later repudiated it and (b) he did not consent to a subsequently prepared written settlement agreement. Court affirm.

B.G. appeals from an order of the juvenile court placing him in county jail. Because the juvenile court granted appellants motion for reconsideration, remanded him to juvenile hall and subsequently released appellant into his own custody, dismissed wardship and terminated his probation, Court dismiss this appeal as moot.

Before this court is a petition for extraordinary writ (writ petition) seeking relief from a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a date for a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26.[1] Petitioner Darren C., Sr. (Darren) seeks this relief on the ground that no clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that real party in interest, the Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services (the department), provided reasonable reunification services to him before those services were terminated. Darren reasons that the juvenile courts finding fails to account for a mental health professionals recommendation that he receive further services in the form of an assessment for possible post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Court deny the writ petition.

A motorcycle driven by respondent Daniel Codner collided with a car driven by appellant John Stevenson Wills near the exit of appellant In-N-Out Burger, a restaurant on Harbor Boulevard in Ventura. The cause of the accident was sharply disputed. The Codners claim that Wills failed to yield the right of way in making a left turn across the lane in which Codner was traveling. Wills claims that Daniel Codner was traveling in excess of the posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Appellant In-N-Out Burger allegedly contributed to the accident by violating its conditional use permit and a City of Ventura ordinance, causing cars to back up on Harbor Boulevard, impairing Wills' line of sight, and preventing him from seeing the motorcycle in time to avoid the collision.

Plaintiff and appellant Hillsides Home for Children provides mental health care services to children in Los Angeles, including children who are eligible for Medi-Cal. Hillsides provided services to 28 patients and submitted claims for reimbursement under Medi-Cal, but the claims were denied. Hillsides, alleging that the claims were denied based on an improper finding that the patients were ineligible for Medi-Cal, filed a petition for writ of mandate, naming as respondents the State of California, the California Department of Health Services and the California Department of Mental Health (collectively, the State). After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate. The court found that when Hillsides submitted the claims for reimbursement, it failed to provide to the State the patients correct Medi-Cal beneficiary identification numbers. The court also found that Hillsides failed to identify the claims adequately for which it was seeking reimbursement. Substantial evidence does not, however, support these findings. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand this matter.

Plaintiff and appellant Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services (Hathaway-Sycamores) provides mental health care services to children in Los Angeles, including children who are eligible for Medi-Cal. Hathaway-Sycamores provided services to 21 patients and submitted claims for reimbursement under Medi-Cal, but the claims were denied. Hathaway-Sycamores, alleging that the claims were denied based on an improper finding that the patients were ineligible for Medi-Cal, filed a petition for writ of mandate, naming as respondents the State of California, the California Department of Health Services and the California Department of Mental Health (collectively, the State). After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate. The court found that when Hathaway-Sycamores submitted the claims for reimbursement, it failed to provide to the State the patients correct beneficiary identification numbers. Substantial evidence does not, however, support this finding. Court therefore reverse the judgment and remand this matter.

Plaintiff and Appellant Five Acres Boys and Girls Aid Society of Los Angeles County (Five Acres) provides, among other things, mental health services to children. Five Acres provided services to 29 patients and submitted claims for reimbursement under Medi-Cal, but the claims were denied. Alleging that the claims were denied based on an improper finding that the patients were ineligible for Medi-Cal, Five Acres filed a petition for writ of mandate, naming as respondents the State of California, the California Department of Health Services and the California Department of Mental Health (collectively, the State). After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition. The court found that when Five Acres submitted the claims for reimbursement, it failed to provide to the State the patients correct beneficiary identification numbers. Substantial evidence does not, however, support this finding. Court therefore reverse the judgment and remand this matter.

Salvador Molina appeals from the judgment imposed after a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187),[1]and possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and found that in the commission of the murder he discharged a firearm and proximately caused death (12022.53, subd. (d)), and that he committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1).
Sentenced to a term of 50 years to life, appellant contends that (1) he was denied due process by the trial courts exclusion of the victims prior felony assault conviction, and (2) the courts failure to define abiding conviction in the reasonable doubt instruction was constitutional error. Court affirm.