CA Unpub Decisions

Jorge V. appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor daughter, L.V., under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26. Jorge argues the evidence was insufficient to support the court's findings that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), did not apply to preclude termination of his parental rights. Court affirm the judgment.

Gerardo R. M. appeals the findings and orders entered at a special hearing during which the court issued a placement order. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held that 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 his . . . custody of a child or his . . . status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny Gerardo's request to review the record for error. Gerardo's counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

In this appeal transferred from the appellate division of the superior court at the request of the defendant, Russell Lee Hays, the People challenge the superior courts order granting defendants motion to dismiss based on the Peoples failure to provide the discovery required by Penal Code section 1054 et seq. Specifically, the People contend the dismissal order was in error because there was no evidence of a Brady[1]violation. As discussed below, we conclude that the sparse record does not indicate whether the trial court found a Brady violation or engaged in the Brady analysis at all. For this reason, we reverse the trial courts order of dismissal and remand to the trial court with instructions to conduct a new hearing on defendants motion to dismiss and to determine whether the Peoples failure to comply with the courts discovery orders violated Brady, and whether sanctions short of dismissal are appropriate.

Defendant, Brian Charles Dubrin, committed separate offenses on different dates, while an inmate in a penal institution. He was subsequently charged with two assaults (Pen. Code,[1] 4501 [assault by a prisoner, count 1], 245, subd. (a)(1) [assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, count 3]), one possession of a weapon while an inmate ( 4502, subd. (a), count 2), and one resisting arrest ( 69, count 4), in addition to prior conviction allegations under the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and two prison priors. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) The counts were consolidated for trial, and he was convicted on counts 2 through 4, but acquitted on count 1. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for count 2, with two concurrent terms of 25 years to life for counts 3 and 4, and a determinate term of one year for the prison prior. Defendant appeals from the conviction, challenging the denial of his motion for separate trials, and the trial courts refusal to strike one of his prior Strikes. Court affirm.

In an information filed on January 19, 2007, the Riverside County District Attorneys Office charged defendant and appellant Christopher Bradley and codefendant Vontel Avila Torres with six counts of second degree robbery under Penal Code section 211. The information also alleged, as to all counts, that defendant and codefendant each participated as a principal knowing that another principal in said offense was armed with a firearm, under section 12022, subdivision (d).

Plaintiff and appellant James Anderson (Anderson) sued defendants and respondents Chaffey Community College District (Chaffey) and certain officers and employees of Chaffey (collectively, defendants) alleging causes of action based upon employment discrimination and retaliation. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Anderson filed an unfinished memorandum of points and authorities and an incomplete separate statement, then applied to the trial court ex parte for additional time to obtain and file additional declarations and a complete memorandum of points and authorities. After the trial court denied the request, Anderson petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to grant an extension of time to allow Anderson to complete [his] opposition to the defendants motion for summary judgment. We issued a peremptory writ directing the trial court to permit Anderson to file the additional declarations and to reference the additional declarations in [his] opposing papers. In response to the writ, the trial court allowed Anderson to file additional declarations, but denied his request to file additional opposition papers. Thereafter, Anderson filed nine new declarations. Following a hearing, the court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment. After the entry of judgment in defendants favor, Anderson appealed.

On May 7, 2008, a jury found defendant and appellant Frank Perez Santiago guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm under Penal Code[1]section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1); and being a felon in possession of ammunition under section 12316, subdivision (b)(1) (count 2). Defendant admitted five prison prior convictions under section 667.5, subdivision (b). In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true that defendant had previously been convicted of two strike prior convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c).

Petitioner Anthony Martinez seeks a writ of habeas corpus to reverse an order of the Governor reversing the Board of Prison Terms (the Board) decision finding him suitable for parole. Because Court find that, applying the standards of recent decisions, there is no evidence to support the Governors reversal, Court grant the petition.

Defendant Loren Charles Gonzales appeals from judgment entered following a jury conviction for failure to register as a sex offender during the period of March 29, 2006, through April 21, 2006 (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (g)(2); count 1).[1] The trial court also found true allegations that defendant had a prior strike ( 1170.12, subd. (a)(d), 667, subd. (b)(i)) and prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to five years in prison.
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence supporting his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender. Alternatively, defendant argues jury instruction CALCRIM No. 1170 was vague and ambiguous and did not adequately define the term residence, in violation of defendants state and federal constitutional rights to due process. Defendant further alternatively asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel. In defendants supplemental brief, defendant argues the definition of residence in section 290.011, subd. (g)[2]is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, in violation of his state and federal constitutional due process rights. Court reject defendants contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Hector Aguirre Lopez terrorized his pregnant wife, Sandra, and her two younger sisters. For many hours, while driving overnight from Moreno Valley to Tijuana, he hit and pistol whipped Sandra causing serious injuries.

Under the Government Claims Act, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity until a written claim has been presented to the entity and the claim either has been acted upon or is deemed to have been rejected. [Citations.] [Citation.] (Sparks v. KernCountyBd. Of Supervisors (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 794, 798.)

A jury found defendant Rodney Dennis, Jr., guilty of six counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 211);[1]two counts of false imprisonment ( 236); and two counts of assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true that defendant personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a)) in the commission of the crimes. Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 34 years 8 months in state prison. Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

The People appeal the grant of defendant Alberto Avena Ramirezs petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Penal Code section 1506. They contend that the trial court erred by finding that counsel was ineffective and that such ineffectiveness was prejudicial and, as a consequence, erred in granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Court disagree and affirm the trial courts grant of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Defendant and Appellant C.S. (Mother) appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights as to 2-year-old A.H. and implementing a plan of legal guardianship as to 17-year-old M.S. and 10-year-old M.A. Mother argues that the juvenile court erred when it failed to (1) apply the sibling bond exception; (2) apply the parental benefit exception; and (3) make provisions for her visitation with respect to M.S. and M.A. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.