CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
This juvenile dependency case concerns four children of appellant, B.O. (Mother). After the trial court terminated reunification services for Mother, Mother filed a request to change court order, commonly referred to as a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1]petition. She requested that reunification services resume or, alternatively, that the children be placed with her under family maintenance status. Although the court found that Mother had shown a sufficient change of circumstances to support the request, it denied the request because the requested changes would not be in the best interests of the children. At a subsequent hearing held pursuant to section 366.26, the court terminated Mothers parental rights to two of the children, D.W. and T.W.
|
In these matters, we have reviewed the petitions, the response filed by real party in interest, and petitioners reply. We have determined that resolution of the matters 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.)
|
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real parties in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate is appropriate to secure limited relief to petitioners. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.) As a preliminary matter, the request for judicial notice is granted.
|
A jury found defendant Jose Luis Guzman guilty of attempted second degree murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1)[1]and assault with a semiautomatic firearm ( 245, subd. (b); count 2). As to both counts, the jury found the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). As to count 1, the jury found defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, which proximately caused great bodily injury to the victim ( 12022.53, subd. (d)). As to count 2, the jury found defendant personally used a handgun ( 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 42 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to bifurcate the trial of the gang enhancements from the trial of the charged offenses; (2) insufficient evidence supports the gang enhancements; (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument; and (4) cumulative error requires reversal of his convictions. Court affirm.
|
A jury convicted Eugene Lujan of the first degree murder of Samuel George and conspiracy to murder George. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 182, subd. (a), 189.) The jury also found true various allegations related to the use of a firearm during the commission of the crime. Lujan was sentenced to a total term of 50 years to life. Lujan contends his conviction must be overturned because the trial court (1) erroneously denied his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; (2) failed to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony pursuant to section 1111; and (3) refused his request to instruct the jury to disregard the fact that Lujan was in custody. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.
|
Appellant Brandi Charlett appeals from an order granting respondent County of Tuolumnes demurrer to her wrongful death complaint. She contends that she should have been excused from her statutory requirement to file her complaint within 30 days of being granted relief to file a late claim. Alternatively, she contends that the trial courts order was null and void because the trial judge had been disqualified in a prior proceeding involving the same operative facts. For the following reasons, Court affirm.
|
Defendant Michael Alan Yocom pled no contest to various crimes after he took tools and other items from yards, sheds and a truck bed. A jury found defendant sane at the time of the crimes. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his second Marsden[1]motion and failing to hold a hearing on his third; (2) the trial court erred in failing to hold a competence hearing; (3) defendant was improperly shackled during the sanity trial; (4) insufficient evidence supported the jurys sanity determination; (5) the trial court erred in failing to grant defendants motion to withdraw his plea; (6) defendant was improperly convicted of both stealing and receiving the same property; (7) the security fee should be reduced; (8) the trial court erred in calculating defendants custody credits; and (9) the trial court improperly stayed the prior prison term enhancements. We will strike the conviction for receiving stolen property and order various other modifications. In all other respects, Court will affirm.
|
A jury found Miguel Angel Ruiz (Ruiz) competent to stand trial. The trial court concluded there was no reasonable, credible evidence to support a finding Ruiz was competent and issued judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The People contend the trial court applied an impermissible standard in setting aside the jurys verdict and ask us to reinstate the jurys verdict. Court disagree with the People and will affirm the trial courts entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
|
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent courts orders issued at a contested 6-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her two minor sons. Court will deny the petition.
|
Defendant Richard G. Nelson III entered no-contest or guilty pleas to lewd act on a child under 14, oral copulation on a child under 14 more than 10 years younger, and possession of child pornography. The trial court placed defendant on probation. It later revoked probation and sentenced defendant to six years and eight months in prison upon a petition alleging that defendant had (1) violated the standard obey-all-laws condition of probation by displaying lewd material to a minor (Pen. Code, 288.2, subd. (a))[1] and indulging in lewd practices in the presence of a minor ( 273g), and (2) twice violated a no-computer-access condition of probation. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) insufficient evidence supports the findings that he violated sections 288.2 and 273g, (2) section 273g is unconstitutionally vague, and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to challenge the no computer access condition as overbroad and unreasonable. Court affirm the judgment.
|
This is an appeal from the sentence imposed following defendants admission of a probation violation. Appointed counsel originally filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Review of the record revealed a discrepancy between the agreed-upon disposition and the sentence actually imposed. We asked the parties to brief the following question: Is reversal required because the record on appeal fails to reflect dismissal of count 2, count 3, and the prior prison term alleged in the complaint? The parties have submitted supplemental briefs on that question, and agree that the plea bargain must be honored, but the judgment need not be reversed. We will remand the matter to the trial court with directions to modify the judgment by dismissing count 2, count 3, and the prior prison term allegation, as contemplated by the plea bargain, and to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. As modified, the judgment will be affirmed.
|
C.P., a minor, appeals from a dispositional order of the juvenile court. His counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues that should be addressed on appeal. Court find there are none, and affirm.
|
The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition seeking to have Lee committed as an SVP. The petition alleged that Lee had received determinate sentences for sexually violent offenses within the meaning of section 6600, subdivisions (b) and (e), namely, convictions in 1988 on three counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon children, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The petition further alleged that the State Department of Mental Health (Department) had designated two practicing psychiatrists or psychologists (or one of each) who had evaluated Lee and determined that he has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes it likely he will engage in acts of sexual violence without appropriate treatment and custody. The petition alleged that Lee poses a danger to the health and safety of others and is predatory within the meaning of section 6600, subdivisions (c) through (e).
|
Actions
Category Stats
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023