CA Unpub Decisions

Benjamin Arthur Macias appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and the special allegation that he was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c)). Appellant was sentenced to eight years in state prison, consisting of the high term of three years, plus five years for the firearm enhancement. On January 22, 2008, a search warrant was issued for room numbers 301, 376 and 378 at the Fess Parker Double Tree Resort in Santa Barbara. Officers entered the hotel and broke down the door to room 301 with a battering ram. They detained a woman (M.D.), arrested a man, and recovered evidence of methamphetamine sales. While detectives were searching room 301, M.D. received a text message on her cell phone from appellant, saying he wanted to bring methamphetamine to the room. M.D. described appellant to a detective and said that he was always armed with a handgun.

A jury convicted Derek Jones of murder and attempted murder. Jones appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that he caused great bodily injury to the attempted murder victim, and also arguing that two other sentence enhancements were erroneously imposed. We agree that the evidence of great bodily injury was not sufficient. Court also agree that one of the two challenged sentence enhancements was erroneously imposed, but we express no opinion on the other because it is unclear whether the trial court actually imposed it. We therefore direct the trial court to strike the challenged enhancement on the murder count, and Court vacate Joness sentence as to the attempted murder count and remand for resentencing on that count.

The juvenile court declared 10-year-old B.L.J. and 8-year-old B.K.J. dependents of the court and removed them from their parents care and custody based in part on its finding that their father, B.J., (Father) had raped, battered and threatened to kill their 13‑year-old half-sister, K.A. The court denied Father reunification services with his children based in part on his sexual abuse of K.A. Father contends that the court committed prejudicial error in curtailing his cross-examination of K.A. and that the evidence is insufficient to support the allegations that he sexually abused her. Court affirm the judgment.

Sheram A. Massehian has filed a certiorari petition challenging oral September 8, 2008 and written October 10, 2008 contempt orders imposing attorney fees when he failed to appear at his February 7, 2008 deposition pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. A written contempt order must recite: the facts constituting the contempt; the fact the person was adjudged in contempt; and the punishment. (Code Civ. Proc., 1211; In re Buckley (1973) 10 Cal.3d 237, 247.) The facts recited in the order must state with sufficient particularity or specificity to show without speculation that a contempt actually occurred. (In re Jones (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 879, 881 [A valid judgment of contempt must meet strict requirements and must show facts essential to establish jurisdiction for the making of the order, the defendants knowledge of the order, his ability to comply, and his willful disobedience]; see In re Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122, 138-139 & fn. 10.) The brief October 10, 2008 written order in this case does not meet these requirements and thus must be annulled. The respondent courts oral findings were not attached to the written order and do not otherwise provide a basis for supporting the contempt judgment. (Ibid.; In re Ringgold (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1013; Fine v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 651, 666.) In any event, the terse oral findings made on September 8, 2008, do not comply with the specific findings requirement. We need not address the remainder of Mr. Massehians contentions.
The oral September 8, 2008 and written October 10, 2008 contempt orders are annulled. All parties are to bear their own costs in connection with these certiorari proceedings.

Todd Neville Ward appeals the judgment (order revoking probation) entered following his plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (d)(1).) Ward contends the trial court imposed a duplicate restitution fine, parole revocation restitution fine and court security fee when it sentenced him to prison. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45, 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).) Ward also contends a $30 criminal conviction assessment imposed under Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1) violates ex post facto principles.
Court reject Wards assertion the $30 criminal conviction assessment is a prohibited ex post facto law. However, Court modify the judgment to reflect the restitution fine, parole revocation restitution fine and court security fee imposed upon revocation of probation are the same fines and fee the trial court imposed when it granted Ward probation.

Father of J.C. (father) appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court. Father contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts decision to sustain the allegations set forth in subdivision (b)(2) of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition filed on behalf of J.C., and that the juvenile court abused its discretion in making dispositional orders requiring father to participate in counseling and parent education. Court affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Saul Mejia appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial which resulted in his conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Mejia to 12 years in prison. court affirm.

S.B. (appellant) appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602)[1]after he admitted to committing a lewd act upon a minor under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1)), an act of oral copulation of a minor under the age of 18 years (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (b)(1)), and criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422). Following our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende), Court affirm.

Joseph Gonzalez appeals following his conviction by jury of battery with injury on a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (c)(2), and resisting an executive officer in violation of Penal Code section 69. He contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his Pitchess motion. We disagree and affirm because Gonzalez failed to show a plausible factual scenario for the Pitchess discovery requested.

A jury convicted Christopher Gaeta (defendant) of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).)[1] In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony under the Three Strikes law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and had served a prior prison term for that conviction ( 667, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of 55 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by: (1) denying his request for a mistrial after a witness volunteered a purportedly prejudicial statement; (2) admitting evidence of defendants membership in a gang; (3) admitting evidence of one incident of domestic violence against a woman other than the victim; and (4) admitting evidence of defendants threats against his father and brother. Defendant also contends that there was insufficient evidence of deliberation and premeditation to support the first degree murder conviction. Court affirm.

The Board of Parole Hearings granted parole to Edward Gozy. The Governor reversed the Boards decision. The trial court reversed the Governors decision. Court affirm the trial courts decision reversing the Governors decision reversing the Boards decision.

Appellant R.P. (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order sustaining the allegations in a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 342, after her daughters, C.P. (born July 1993) and J.P. (born January 1995) (collectively, minors), were adjudicated dependents of the juvenile court. Court affirm the juvenile courts order.

Lance M. appeals from the trial courts order deferring entry of judgment (Welf. & Inst. Code, 790) after it was determined he committed second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459). As there is no final order or judgment from which to appeal (Welf. & Inst. Code, 800), Court dismiss the matter as premature.

Alleged father J.C. of minor A.D. seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order setting a hearing to consider termination of parental rights and establishment of adoption as a permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Court deny the petition.