CA Unpub Decisions

Ann V. appeals the judgment entered at the permanency planning selection and implementation hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting . . . her custody of a child or . . . her status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny her requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issue. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Ann V.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

In Rutland Park in Riverside, David Worman was shot in the abdomen and the head and died on March 16 or 17, 1994.
Defendant John Jason Montalvos jury trials in 2005 and 2007 ended in mistrials.
In 2008, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder, including a true finding on the firearm use enhancement. ( 187, subd. (a); 1192.7, subd. (c); 12022.5, subd. (a).) The court sentenced defendant to a total indeterminate prison term of 28 years to life. On appeal, defendant raises issues related to the admission of gang evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence for the first degree murder conviction. Court reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Leon Patton pled guilty on March 23, 2007, to possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, 12280, subd. (b)) and possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5). Pursuant to the plea agreement, a sentence was imposed, the execution of the sentence suspended, and defendant was placed on probation. On November 7, 2008, the trial court found defendant violated probation and imposed the suspended sentence. Defendant contends the trial court did not understand its discretion. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant John Kevin Medina guilty of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)),[1]a lesser included offense of the charged offense of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)). In addition, the trial court found true that defendant had sustained two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to a total term of four years in state prison; however, execution of that sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on three years formal probation with various terms and conditions, including serving one year in a residential substance abuse treatment program. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions as they stemmed from an unlawful detention and/or an unlawful search. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

During a visit to Pinecrest Lake in August 2007, defendant Gary Jay Burgin bumped shoulders with a man going the opposite direction on a trail. A confrontation followed and defendant punched the other man, breaking his jaw. At trial, defendant claimed he acted in self-defense. A jury found him guilty[1]of battery with serious bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d). Defendant was sentenced to five years of probation with 120 days of jail time. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the version of Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2007) CALCRIM No. 358 given at his trial contained error, and (2) the prosecutors attempt to impeach his testimony by mentioning her personal knowledge of matters outside the record constituted misconduct and denied him due process of law. Court conclude the former version of CALCRIM No. 358 used in this case incorrectly instructed the jury to view evidence of a defendants pretrial exculpatory statements with caution. This error, however, was harmless. We also conclude that the prosecutor inappropriately made representations of fact about matters not in evidence when cross-examining defendant, but any claim of misconduct was forfeited by defendants failure to object and request a curative admonition.
The judgment will be affirmed.

Kern County residents Edith G. and Casper S. McDonald were married in December 1959. Each spouse had two children from prior relationships. Plaintiffs, Ede-Ann Walters (Walters) and Harry Geyer III (Geyer), were children of Edith and defendants, Valerie Napier (Napier) and Gail Pedersen (Pedersen), were children of Casper. Edith died in 1985 and Casper died in 2004, never having remarried. Edith and Casper executed a living trust in 1983. The trust created separate A and B subtrusts. Trust A included the couples community property, including their residence. Trust B consisted of Ediths separate property. Defendants and plaintiffs were named as successor trustees of the living trust and signed the trust instrument as successor trustees.

The minor, appellant A.L., pursuant to orders in a dependency proceeding, had lived in the same foster home from July of 2002 through April of 2008 except for a brief period in 2006. Although appellant was performing poorly in school, receiving a failing grade in all classes on an April 2008 report card, he apparently was not a behavior problem in the foster home or at school. In May of 2008, appellant received a police referral for fighting; he completed an informal probation program. In December of 2008, appellant began openly to smoke marijuana, to fight at school, and to glamorize the gang lifestyle, according to his social worker. On December 3, 2008, appellant was under the influence of marijuana at school, was detained by a school security guard, and was arrested by the police. A few days later, appellant participated in an altercation with the same security guard, cursed school personnel, and again was arrested. After the altercations at school, appellant was transferred from his foster family to a group home in a different city.

Sparks served as the elected sheriff of the County of Kern (County) from 1991 through 2002. The County subsequently sued Sparks for alleged misconduct occurring while Sparks was in office. (Kern Co. Super. Ct. case No. 254074 [Case No. 254074].)
In July 2005, Sparks filed an ex parte application under Government Code[1]section 31000.6 for appointment of independent legal counsel to defend him in Case No. 254074, the misconduct action. (Kern Co. Super. Ct. case No. 255904 [Case No. 255904].) Sparks alleged that respondent, Kern County Board of Supervisors (Board), was required to provide him with a defense. The trial court denied Sparkss application on the ground that section 31000.6 did not apply to former sheriffs. Sparks appealed.

Defendant John Nguyen was convicted after jury trial of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664, subd. (a), 187).[1] The jury found true allegations that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury to a person not an accomplice ( 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.7, subd. (a)) during the commission of the offense, but not true the allegation that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated ( 189). The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for the indeterminate term of 25 years to life consecutive to the determinate term of five years.

In this case, the juvenile court found three siblings came within its dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect).[1] In its disposition, the court adjudged the minors dependent children of the court, ordered them returned home to the care and custody of mother (E.N.) on a case plan of family maintenance services, and removed them from the physical custody of the father[2] (L.B.) on a case plan of family reunification services.[3] Each parent appeals. ( 395, subd. (a)(1).)
Both father and mother seek review of the finding of jurisdiction and assert a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to establish that the children are persons described by section 300, subdivision (b). The mother additionally argues that the juvenile court improperly considered the benefits of assuming jurisdiction in assessing the risk to the children. The father maintains that there was no credible evidence that either parent had an unresolved substance abuse problem and joins in mother's arguments. Appellants do not challenge the disposition.
Court reverse.

Appellant Waites Earl Williams, Jr., appeals from the final judgment in this action to dissolve his marriage to respondent Arnetta Dean Williams. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment. Court affirm.

In 2000, Ha, LYDC, respondents, and Nam Kyung Cho (Cho[2]), as well as Maryann K. Lee who is not a party to this litigation, executed the Operating Agreement for 139 S. Occidental Boulevard LLC (Operating Agreement), thereby acknowledging that they were the initial members of a limited liability company known as 139 S. Occidental Boulevard LLC (the LLC[3]). The Operating Agreement describes the LLCs general purpose as the development and sale of real property located at 139 S. Occidental Boulevard in Los Angeles. Per the terms of the Operating Agreement, Ha was elected the sole manager for a two-year term. Court affirm.

Appellant Allen V. C. Davis appeals from the order of the probate court that directs payment of fees incurred by the court-appointed Probate Volunteer Panel (PVP) attorney out of the estate of the proposed conservatee, Lenabelle Berg Davis, Allens wife. Allen contends that for myriad reasons the probate court had no jurisdiction to order payment from Lenabelles estate. Court hold, although the probate court had authority to direct the payment of fees from Lenabelles estate, that where Allen was not given notice of the hearing on the PVP attorneys fee request, the order must be reversed.