CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant S.C. (the minor) appeals after the juvenile court sustained a petition charging him with the offenses of forcible rape and sexual battery. The minor contends that the lower court erred in permitting the complaining witnesss parents to remain in the courtroom with her as support persons during her trial testimony. The minor further urges that the court prejudicially erred in failing to admonish the victims parents pursuant to Penal Code section 868.5 while they acted as support persons to the witness. Court affirm.

Following a jury trial, defendant Robert Gaffin, IV, was convicted of possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359), and was placed on formal probation for three years.

Appellant Kaurs home was destroyed by fire on July 27, 2005. Her claim for benefits under her homeowners insurance policy was denied by respondent Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE) on June 21, 2006. The following month Kaur filed this action against FIE. A month-long trial resulted in a jury verdict and judgment in favor of the insurer. The jurys special verdict expressly found that appellant failed to comply with the so-called cooperation clause of the insurance policy requiring the insured to as often as we reasonably require ... provide us with records and documents we may request, including banking or other financial records, if obtainable, and permit us to make copies. The jury also made a special finding that appellants failure to provide such information caused actual prejudice to defendants handling of the claim.

A jury convicted appellant Ernesto Antonio Mejia of purchasing a stolen vehicle, knowing it was stolen, and of driving without a validlicense. In a separate hearing, the trial court found true that Mejia had served a prior prison term. Mejia raises numerous claims of prejudicial error: (1) discriminatory use of peremptory challenges; (2) instructional error; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct. In addition, he asks this court to review personnel records of the police department to determine if all discoverable material was released by the trial court.

Appellant Edgar Trujillo pled no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and to driving without a license. Trujillo contends the trial court erred at sentencing when it considered a prior arrest, for which he had not yet been tried or convicted, and used the prior arrest as a basis for imposing an aggravated term. Court will affirm the judgment.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her son W. Court will deny the petition.

Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile courts dispositional orders denying him reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26 hearing as to his two sons and daughter. Court deny the petition.

Richard Spencer appeals from an order that denied a motion to set aside a judgment against him in this collection action by Winston Financial Group, Inc. (Winston). The motion was brought after an assignee of the judgment, Court Services LLC (Court Services) levied on Spencers bank account. Spencer argues there was sufficient evidence to find he was never served with the summons and complaint, the judgment is void, and the motion was timely. But the trial court found service was made, and the evidence supports that finding, so Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Terry Lee Newberry of two counts of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (b))[1], one count of forgery ( 470, subd. (d)), and one count of grand theft ( 487, subd. (a)), all related to the use of a single counterfeit check. The court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of two years as follows: The middle term of two years on count 1 (burglary); the middle term of two years on count 3 (grand theft), to be served concurrently to the sentence on count 1; the middle term of two years on each of counts 2 (forgery) and 5 (burglary), with execution of both sentences stayed pursuant to section 654. Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $45,890.
Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendants behalf. Counsel requested we conduct an independent review of the entire record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We have reviewed the entire record and considered the potential issues tendered by counsel pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, and have not found an arguable issue. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant Mark Thomas Grunau of annoying a child under the age of 18 and loitering on school grounds, and defendant admitted having two strike prior convictions. (Pen. Code, 647.6, 653, subd. (g), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)[1] On appeal from the judgment, he claims there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for annoying a child. He also claims the court erred in admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct.
Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Defendant Francisco Palmeno was convicted of three counts of lewd conduct (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) on his two granddaughters, and the jury found true an allegation that he had committed these offenses on more than one victim (Pen. Code, 667.61, subd. (e)(5), 1203.066, subd. (a)(7)). He was committed to state prison to serve a term of 15 years to life. On appeal, he contends that his convictions must be reversed because the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 of his prior sexual offenses against his two stepdaughters over defendants Evidence Code section 352 objection. He also contends that the courts AIDS testing order is not supported by probable cause and that the Penal Code section 290.3 fine was imposed in the wrong amount. We find no cause for reversal of his convictions, but we find merit in his other contentions. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings regarding the AIDS testing order, correction of the amount of the Penal Code section 290.3 fine, and specification of the penalty assessments applicable to that fine. Court also direct the trial court to correct a mistake on the abstract of judgment.

Defendant, Angel Zarate appeals from an order extending his civil commitment for one year. (Pen. Code, 2970.) In 1995, appellant pleaded no contest to spousal abuse (Pen. Code, 273.5) and admitted a prior conviction for murder. (Pen Code, 667, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison and recommended that he be housed in the mental health unit. On October 10, 1997, defendant was admitted to Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 2962. On June 6, 2000, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition to compel involuntary treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 2970. That petition was granted, as were seven more between the years 2000 and 2007. On June 25, 2008, the district attorney filed the instant petition seeking yet another extension to defendants commitment. After a court trial, where only the district attorney presented evidence, the trial court found the allegations of the petition to extend commitment to be true. The court then extended defendants commitment for one year. This appeal ensued.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Dennis James Curtis was convicted by plea of felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), being under the influence of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a)), and felony possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)). On appeal he contends that his plea bargain contemplated a reduction of the first and third counts from felonies to misdemeanors. We agree that the plea appeared to be induced by an undertaking by the court to reduce the methamphetamine charge to a misdemeanor. Court will therefore remand for resentencing.