CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Solomon Johnson of assault with a firearm and found true enhancements for personal use of a handgun and crimes committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Appellant contends insufficient evidence supported the conviction and enhancements. Court disagree and affirm.

A jury returned a defense verdict in Tania E. Bataches personal injury action stemming from a car accident against Roberto Ayala and Sehmi Motors, Inc. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the substance of Vehicle Code section 22107. Court affirm the judgment.

C. M. is the mother of T. M. (C. M. is referred to as mother.) She appeals from juvenile court orders that terminated her reunification services, terminated jurisdiction over her son T. M., who was born in May 2003, and granted physical custody of T. M. to his presumed father, D.S., who lives in Alabama.[1] Mother contends that (1) the court failed to make findings necessary under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 366 and 366.22[2]; (2) substantial evidence does not support the termination of reunification services and jurisdiction; and (3) the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not provide Mother reasonable reunification services.
This is Mothers third appeal in this case. The other two concerned dispositional orders for T. M. as well as his brother, as to whom jurisdiction was earlier terminated, and the order determining D. S.s presumed parenthood. On mothers motion, Court have augmented the record to include the records in the prior appeals. Court affirm the orders under review.

A jury convicted Khamisi Branch of resisting an executive officer, and the trial court found that Branch had one prior strike conviction, and four prior convictions for which he served a prison term. The trial court thereafter sentenced Branch to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison, comprised of a high-term of three years, doubled to a six-year term for the prior strike, plus four terms of one year each for the four remaining prior convictions. Branch appeals. We find Branch should have been sentenced for three, not four, prior convictions with a prison term, and thus modify Branchs sentence to nine years. As modified, Court affirm the judgment.

S.B. (Mother)[1]appeals from the juvenile courts order, following an evidentiary hearing, denying her petition to terminate the legal guardianship previously ordered for her daughter T.B. and to return full custody of T.B. to her. Mother also appeals from the courts denial of her request to continue the hearing on her petition to the date set for adjudication of the supplemental petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) to remove T.B. from the home of her legal guardian, Samuel B., T.B.s maternal uncle. Court affirm.

Reinaldo Ayala appeals from a judgment entered following his no contest plea to count 1, discharging a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code, 246.3, subd. (a)), count 2, possession of a firearm by a felon (Penal Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction for negligently discharging a firearm, a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and served three prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5. He was sentenced to prison for four years, consisting of in count 1, the midterm of two years, doubled by reason of his prior strike. Sentence on count 2 was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. He contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that his prior conviction for negligent discharge of a firearm involved the personal use of a deadly weapon so as to qualify as a serious felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the judgment.

Wintron David Nunez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury on two counts of making a criminal threat and his subsequent admission of having suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d))[1] and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Nunez argues the trial court violated his statutory right under section 1025, subdivision (b), to have the same jury decide the substantive offenses and the truth of the prior conviction allegations when the court concluded, after discharging the original jury, a second jury could try the prior conviction allegations. Court affirm.

Eleven months into her probation, Tammy Schweitzer resigned from her position as an investigator for the Ventura County District Attorney's Office Bureau of Investigation (Bureau). The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the County of Ventura (County) on her first amended complaint for gender discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Court affirm.

Shawn Shaw appeals his rape and robbery convictions. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues. After Shaw was notified, he submitted a supplemental brief challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of photographic and DNA evidence, and the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel. We have reviewed the entire record and find no merit in Shaws contentions. Finding no other arguable issues, Court affirm the judgment.

Jarrod Matthew Trout appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine (count 1) and resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer (count 2). (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code,
148, subd. (a)(1).)[1] Trout also admitted that he had suffered one prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and one prior prison term. ( 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 668, 1170.12, subds. (a) & (c)(1), 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced Trout to state prison for 32 months (the low term of 16 months doubled) on count 1, and imposed a concurrent 180-day jail sentence on count 2. The trial court dismissed the remaining charges and prior conviction allegation. Trout contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. ( 1538.5.) Court affirm.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged Johan Gomez with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1), 12316, subd. (b)(1)).[1] The information further alleged that defendant had suffered prior convictions for grand theft ( 487, subd. (c)) and possession of ammunition by a felon ( 12316, subd. (b)(1)). Gomez moved to suppress the recovered firearm (a shotgun) and ammunition pursuant to section 1538.5.[2] At the hearing on the suppression motion, one of the arresting officers testified to the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the shotgun and ammunition. Gomez did not call any witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the suppression motion. The People indicated they were unable to proceed without evidence of the shotgun and ammunition, and the trial court accordingly dismissed the charges against Gomez pursuant to section 1385.[3] The People timely appealed from the dismissal. On appeal, the People contend that the trial court committed reversible error by granting Gomezs suppression motion. Court agree, and reverse the trial courts ruling.

T.S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders asserting jurisdiction over F.S. and removing her from mothers custody. Mother contends: (1) she was denied due process because the court failed to give the advisement of rights required by California Rules of Court, rule 5.682(b); (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b); and (3) substantial evidence did not support the courts dispositional order removing F.S. from mothers custody. Court affirm.

J.B., the father of two minor girls, A.B. and L.B., appeals from the jurisdictional order of the juvenile court adjudging the minors dependent children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c). The order was based on findings that the parents created a detrimental home environment because of an ongoing custody battle and hostile relationship, causing their daughters to suffer emotional damage and placing the children at risk of physical and emotional harm. The court placed A.B. with the father and L.B. with the mother and ordered family maintenance services and reunification services for both parents as to the child placed with the other parent.
The father contends the evidence was insufficient to support dependency jurisdiction. We agree and accordingly reverse the jurisdictional order.

Defendant, Isaiah Petillo, appeals from his conviction for second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) and a personal deadly weapon use finding. ( 12022, sub. (b)(1).) Defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted fingerprint evidence. Court affirm.