CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant admitted that he violated his probation by failing to annually update his registration as a sex offender in violation of former Penal Code section 290, subdivision (a)(1)(D).[1] His probation was revoked and he was sentenced to the middle term of two years in state prison. In this appeal he argues that the trial court erred by considering his failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements as a reason to deny probation. He claims the imposition of the registration requirements upon him was a denial of his equal protection rights. We find that defendant forfeited any challenge to the validity of the registration order by failing to object in the trial court, and no inadequate assistance of counsel has been established on appeal. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant Raekubian Alexander Barrow of one count of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422)[1] and the court sentenced him to state prison. Appellant raises two issues on appeal. He claims: (1) inflammatory and improper statements made by two prospective jurors during voir dire violated his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury; and (2) the court committed prejudicial error by admitting prior uncharged misconduct evidence in violation of Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352. Court affirm.

The Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (RSO) was adopted by popular vote in 1988 in the City of East Palo Alto.[1] The RSO requires the Board[2] to issue annual Certificate[s] of Maximum Legal Rent (hereafter Certificate or Certificates) stating the maximum allowable rent, or rent ceiling, landlords may charge tenants. (RSO, 8.G.) The principal method of calculating annual rent increases is set forth in section 11 of the RSO[3] and rule 1601 of the Board Rules and Regulations (hereafter Rule or Rules).[4] The Board computes the rent increases and informs landlords and tenants of the new maximum allowable rent in the annual Certificates. (RSO, 8.G., 11; Rules 1600-1601.) At the end of November 2007, Landlords gave notices of rent increases to their tenants in units subject to the RSO. In January 2008, after receiving numerous complaints from Landlords tenants, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 308 (Urgency Ordinance) that limited permissible rent increases as to every residential rental unit registered in the RSO program, including Landlords units.

Defendant Jason Darn appeals from the entry of judgment following his conviction for first degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution due to the failure of defense counsel to object to alleged prosecutorial vouching for the credibility of an accomplice testifying against him. Court affirm.

Defendant Kenneth Fuller, while represented by a deputy public defender, pled no contest to a felony charge of receiving stolen property. The trial court subsequently denied defendants postplea Marsden[1] motion for substitution of counsel. The trial court did, however, appoint conflict counsel to advise defendant in connection with a motion to withdraw his plea. Defendant later waived his right to counsel under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta), and represented himself in connection with his motion to withdraw his plea, an accompanying motion to reduce the charge against him to a misdemeanor, and sentencing. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his Marsden motion, and that this ruling le[ft] [defendant] to represent himself and impair[ed] presentation of his motion to withdraw the no contest plea. Court affirm.

This appeal involves a contest between two of decedents nine children over whether one of them, respondent, was entitled to receive, per a deed executed by decedent several years before his death, title to real property owned by him in Oakland. Appellant, per several petitions filed by her, asserted that respondent was not so entitled because she exercised undue influence to induce the decedent to deed the property to her. The probate court disagreed; Court affirm its judgment.

Counsel appointed for defendant John Thomas Vincent has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Court have conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

Appellants Jason Lensch and Ean Lensch (appellants) appeal from the probate courts order denying their petition to determine survival and to determine persons entitled to distribution of the estate of their grandmother, Gladys Lensch, under Probate Code sections 220, 21109, and 21110. They argue that the trial court erred in denying their requests for an evidentiary hearing as well as denying their petition. We agree and conclude that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, Court reverse the courts order, and remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant Michael Scott Posey was convicted of the first degree murder of his estranged wife, Elizabeth. Her sons from a prior marriage, plaintiffs Michael and Cody Johnson, sued defendant for wrongful death and obtained a $2.7 million judgment. Defendant contends that as an incarcerated defendant in a civil action he was denied access to the courts. Court disagree because the record demonstrates that defendant never claimed he was indigent and never requested counsel. He held himself out as his own attorney. As such, there was no infringement on an inmates constitutional right of court access. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Nicole W. appeals from the dispositional order of the San Francisco Juvenile Court declaring her son Ronnie H. a dependent child and removing him from her custody. She contends: (1) the courts jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) her sons situation was incorrectly handled as a dependency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, when it should have been treated as a delinquency proceeding under section 600; and (3) Ronnie should not have been removed from her custody. Court reject these contentions and affirm.

Gary Drocco appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against respondents Edward P. Ortega and Trudy H. Ortega for Droccos failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. His complaint was dismissed after the court sustained the Ortegas demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that Droccos complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Drocco contends his complaint was not barred because he is alleging a separate and distinct cause of action that was not litigated in a prior action. Moreover, he says even if the claim was properly barred, the trial court abused its discretion by denying him leave to amend. Court conclude the trial court properly applied res judicata to Droccos complaint, but abused its discretion when it denied Drocco leave to amend. Accordingly, Court reverse the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend.

K.M. was detained as a newborn by the City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services (Agency) after prenatal methadone exposure caused her distress at birth. Within a month, K.M.s parents, Ana S. (Mother) and Lorenzo M. (Father), ceased contact with her. After K.M.s maternal grandmother (Grandmother) was identified as a prospective adoptive parent, the juvenile court found K.M. adoptable and terminated parental rights. Mother, who was eventually located, and Father, who has been deported to Mexico, contend the juvenile court erred in finding K.M. adoptable. Court affirm.

Sixteen-year-old A.S. (appellant) appeals from a dispositional order placing her on probation. Appellants counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, Court conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the order.

Aric Brandon Miles appeals from the revocation of his probation. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified defendant that he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.