CA Unpub Decisions

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Brandon Donald Bartlett pled guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle. (Pen. Code, 496d, subd.(a); case No. FVA800264). The plea agreement included a Harvey waiver permitting the consideration of dismissed and unfiled charges for restitution purposes. Defendant challenges the amount of restitution awarded to the victim of a dismissed case. Court affirm.

Defendant Iamthebeast Sssotlohiefmjn[1]appeals[2]from his conviction of planting or cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, count 3), misdemeanor annoyance by means of an electronic communications device (Pen. Code, 653m, subd. (a), count 4), and misdemeanor criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422, count 1). Defendant contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of a violation of Penal Code[3]section 653m, subd. (a), because that statute requires that defendant direct his communication to a particular person, and his conduct was merely a general internet posting; and (2) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to define the term obscene as used in Penal Code section 653m because the term has a technical meaning in the context of that statute. Court agree with defendants first contention and will therefore reverse his conviction of count 4. Court therefore need not reach his second contention.

Colleen Bishop, Randy Bishop, and Scott Kelly sued Steven and Patricia LaMunyon to specifically enforce an alleged contract to purchase certain property from the LaMunyons. The Bishops and Mr. Kelly were represented by the law firm of Reid & Hellyer. The LaMunyons won that lawsuit and have now sued the Bishops, Mr. Kelly, Reid & Hellyer, and three of Reid & Hellyers attorneys for malicious prosecution. The LaMunyons allege that defendants initiated and maintained the underlying lawsuit without probable cause and with malice. As against Reid & Hellyer and the three attorneys (collectively, R&H), the LaMunyons rely heavily upon allegations that R&H illegally concealed evidence and suborned the perjury of their clients.

Defendant and appellant Tina Marie Morrison Mosley pled no contest to grand theft. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a).) As a condition of probation, defendant was ordered to provide restitution. Defendant contends she did not receive sufficient notice of the restitution sought, and challenges the denial of a request for a continuance. Court affirm.

On September 2, 2008, defendant and appellant Antonio Don Phillips entered into a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5, count 1.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, one count of offering to sell cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a), count 2) was dismissed, as well as allegations of a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and a prior prison conviction (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The court informed defendant it was going to sentence him to the low term of three years, and then released him on a Cruz[1]waiver pending his sentencing hearing. Defendant appeared for sentencing on October 24, 2008, and requested a continuance, which the court granted. On November 21, 2008, he appeared for sentencing and requested another continuance, but the court denied this request. He immediately moved to withdraw his plea. The court summarily denied his request and imposed the three-year state prison term. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to allow him to state a basis for his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, 1237.5), we shall dismiss the appeal.

juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that defendant and appellant A.L. (minor) committed the offense of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496 subd. (a).) A juvenile court found the allegation to be true. Minor had previously been declared a ward of the court after admitting the allegation that he committed vandalism with over $400 in damage (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(1)) in a previous case. Thus, he was on probation at the time he committed the current offense. The court then continued him as a ward in his mothers custody, with additional terms of probation. On appeal, minor contends there was insufficient evidence to support the courts true finding that he had knowledge the property was stolen or that he had possession of the property. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant Alfred Vicario guilty of shooting at an occupied dwelling (Pen. Code,[1] 246) and being a felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)); at a subsequent court trial, true findings were made on two Strike allegations ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and three prison prior allegations. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 53 years to life.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Alejandro Martinez of aggravated mayhem (Pen. Code, 205, count 1),[1]assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and active participation in a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (a), count 3). The jury found true the allegation that defendant committed counts 1 and 2 for the benefit of a criminal street gang. ( 186.22, subd. (b).) The trial court found true that defendant served a prior prison sentence. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced him to a total state prison term of eight years eight months, plus life with the possibility of parole. The sentence consisted of eight years on count 2, which was deemed the principal count, eight months consecutive on count 3, plus life with the possibility of parole on count 1.
On appeal, defendant contends the sentences on counts 2 and 3 should have been stayed under section 654. Court affirm.

W.B. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile courts findings and orders of May 19, 2009, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code,[1]section 300. She contends the evidence is insufficient to support the courts findings that she has mental health issues and that such issues interfere with her ability to parent. She further contends that such findings were prejudicial to her.

On March 27, 2009, defendant John McClain Veatch, represented by counsel, pled guilty to one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)),[1]and admitted that he had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim ( 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the commission of the offense. In return, defendant was sentenced to the stipulated term of six years in state prison with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. His notice of appeal challenges the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea as well as the validity of the plea.

Defendants and appellants, E.C. (Mother) and I.R. (Father), the parents of D.R., a girl born in February 2007, appeal from July 20, 2009, orders terminating their parental rights to D.R. and selecting adoption as her permanent plan. Father claims insufficient evidence supports the courts determination that D.R. was adoptable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subds. (b), (c).)[1] Mother claims insufficient evidence supports the courts determination that the parental benefit exception to the statutory preference for adoption did not apply. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The parents join each others contentions. We affirm. For the reasons we explain, substantial evidence supports the courts determinations that D.R. was adoptable and that the parental benefit exception did not apply.

Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from respondent courts order issued at a combined contested six and 12-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]hearing as to her son S. and daughter T. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, Court will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

After judgment was entered in this cross-action against CH2M Hill, the trial court awarded attorney fees and costs to the cross-complainant, UDC-Universal Development, L.P. (UDC), pursuant to Civil Code section 1717. CH2M Hill appeals, contending that the court abused its discretion in finding UDC to be the prevailing party and in determining the amount of fees and costs to award UDC. Court find no error, however, and therefore will affirm the order.

A.M. appeals from a judgment declaring her to be a ward of the court and placing her on probation in a delinquency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following a contested jurisdiction hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 725, subd. (b), 800, subd. (a).) Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of Penal Code section 422.[1] She also claims that two probation conditions, a gang condition and a weapon condition, are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Court modify the probation conditions and affirm.