CA Unpub Decisions

M.S. appeals from an order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) following a finding she committed three second-degree robberies (Pen. Code, 211). She was placed home on probation in the home of her mother and a maximum period of confinement was set at seven years. She contends the juvenile court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement because she was not removed from the custody of her parent. For reasons stated in the opinion, we strike the maximum term of confinement and in all other respects affirm the order of wardship.

After an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found that S.G. disobeyed a court restraining order and committed battery. The court declared S.G. a ward of the court, and ordered her home on probation, with a maximum confinement term of eight months. S.G. appeals. Court strike the maximum term of confinement, and affirm the juvenile court order in all other respects.

This action challenges a proposed 190-foot high office building on two grounds. The first ground is that it violates a municipal zone code. The second ground is that the certification of an environmental impact report violated provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Pub. Res. Code, 21000 et seq.[1]) Plaintiff, United Neighbors of the Westside, appeals from an April 22, 2009 judgment denying its mandate petition. Plaintiff sought to set aside the approval of the proposed 190-foot high office building and certification of an environmental impact report for a development project in the City of Culver City (city). Court affirm the judgment

Defendant La Villa Grande Homeowners Association (the Association) appeals from an order directing the Association to conduct an election for the board of directors. The order was issued in a case filed by several members of the Association (plaintiffs)[1] seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as costs and expenses incurred in enforcing the documents governing the Association. The Association contends that (1) the trial court erred by granting a preliminary injunction that provides the ultimate relief sought in the complaint; (2) the order was improper because plaintiffs did not bring a claim under Corporations Code section 7510[2] (hereafter section 7510); (3) plaintiffs action was premature; and (4) the order was too vague. While it may have been preferable -- and certainly more efficient -- for plaintiffs to have sought an order mandating an election through the summary procedure authorized in section 7510, subdivision (c), the procedure used here gave the Association sufficient notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard, and therefore the order (which we find was not impermissibly vague) was proper. Accordingly, Court affirm the order.

Sentenced to five years in state prison, defendant Zebediah Joe Juniel appeals, contending he was entitled to specific performance of a plea bargain which included a sentencing lid of four years and four months. The plea bargain was agreed to by one judge but rejected by another. The case returned to the first judge and, after a hearing, he too rejected the plea bargain. Court affirm.

A jury acquitted defendant Anthony Eugene Decker, Jr., of possession of an incendiary device (Pen. Code, 453, subd. (a)), but convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon and felony battery, and found he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim.[1] (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), 243, subd. (d), 12022.7, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for five years, and defendant timely filed this appeal. Court affirm.

Defendant David Griffin appeals from an order (judgment) committing him to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) as a sexually violent predator (SVP) pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.; further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.) Finding no prejudicial error, Court will affirm the judgment.

Appellants, the mother and father of six children declared dependents of the juvenile court, appeal from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 360, subd. (d), 395; further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.) They claim the petition failed to state a cause of action, and there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings and removal of the minors from parental custody. They also raise claims relating to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) Court shall affirm the juvenile courts orders.

After a court trial held in November 2003, defendant was convicted of three counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child aged 15, defendant being at least 10 years older than the child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (c)(1)), six counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (Pen. Code, 261.5, subd. (d)), one count of oral copulation with a minor (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (b)(2)), and two counts of attempting to dissuade a witness. (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (a)(2).) Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the upper term of four years for one of his convictions of unlawful sexual intercourse, given consecutive one-year sentences (one-third of the middle term) for two of his other convictions of unlawful sexual intercourse, given a two-year consecutive term for one of his convictions of attempting to dissuade a witness and concurrent middle terms for the remainder of his convictions, for a total prison sentence of eight years. Defendant appealed his conviction.

While on probation in case No. S03CRF0344 (No. 0344), defendant John Ellis Dupre IV was remanded into custody where he remained from January 3, 2007, through December 20, 2007 (i.e., 352 days), for probation violations in case No. 0344 and new criminal offenses in case No. S07CRF0003 (No. 0003). A subsequent probation violation resulted in termination of probation and execution of a previously stayed two-year prison sentence. The trial court denied defendants request for an award of dual custody credits in case Nos. 0344, 0003 and S07CRF0320 (No. 0320) for the 352-day period, concluding defendant was not entitled to dual credit because he was in custody on separate matters during the time period in question. Defendant sought relief by informal letter to the trial court, to no avail.

In this consolidated appeal,[1] J.C. (appellant), the mother of C.C. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile courts orders prohibiting contact between appellant and the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388, 395.)[2] Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the orders. For the reasons that follow, Court shall affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Warren Granard Watford of failing to register with local law enforcement as an out-of-state sex offender. (Pen. Code, 290, 290.005; undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code.) The trial court sustained an allegation that defendant had been convicted of a strike within the meaning of section 1170.12, subdivision (a) through (d) and section 667, subdivision (b) through (i). The trial court sentenced defendant to 32 months in state prison, which was the low term of 16 months doubled for the strike.

Defendant Johnny Carlos Hernandez appeals following resentencing on remand. He contends the trial court erred by imposing the upper term, and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. Court shall affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Tyrea Kinte Hicks guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)), 12316, subd. (b)(1); further section references are to the Penal Code.) Finding that defendant had four prior serious felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life pursuant to the three strikes law.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence, (2) his Wheeler-Batson motion was erroneously denied (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258; Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [90 L.Ed.2d 69]), (3) the court should have granted his motion to strike his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing, (4) his sentences of 25 years to life are unconstitutionally cruel and/or unusual punishment, and (5) his sentence for unlawful possession of ammunition should have been stayed pursuant to section 654. We shall modify the judgment to stay the sentence for the ammunition conviction, and affirm the judgment as modified.