CA Unpub Decisions

Deborah Medeiros appeals from orders granting three safe-harbor petitions under Probate Code section 21320[1] filed by her brother, respondent John Thompson. By his safe-harbor petitions, Thompson sought a declaration that a proposed petition to remove and surcharge Medeiros as cotrustee of certain family trusts will not violate the no contest provisions in the trusts or in their mothers will. Court affirm.

This appeal has been from the trial courts denial of a petition for writ of mandate in which David Stier (hereafter plaintiff) seeks to be relieved of the duty to register as a sex offender. Plaintiff claims that his conviction for a sex offense in North Carolina does not require him to register under California law, and that the imposition of mandatory sex offender registration requirements on him violates equal protection guarantees. We conclude that plaintiff has made allegations and admissions in his pleading that bring him within the duty to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290.005, and no equal protection violation has been established. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant Damon Anthony Tyler was on probation for evading a police officer and possession of cocaine when he committed a robbery. Following the revocation of his probation and conviction for the robbery, the court imposed consecutive sentences for the robbery and for the two prior offenses for which imposition of sentence had previously been suspended. Although receiving a total sentence of 19 years and four months, defendant challenges only the imposition of consecutive eight-month sentences for the two prior convictions, contending that the court did so based on a factual misunderstanding that the two prior convictions arose out of separate cases when in fact the two offenses occurred at the same time and place and were prosecuted in the same action. Court disagree that there was any error and shall affirm.

The statutory scheme governing juvenile dependency proceedings requires dependency courts to return dependent minors to their parents after 18 months of reunification services unless doing so would cause a substantial risk of detriment to the minor. In the present case, the dependency court found that no such risk had been demonstrated. The court therefore ordered that custody of the minor be transferred to the minors father from her maternal grandparents and de facto parents, who had been the minors primary caretakers since her birth. The maternal grandparents appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in finding lack of detriment, because the minor was more attached to them than to her father. Court conclude that substantial evidence supported the dependency courts finding that there was no risk of detriment to minor from being placed in fathers custody. Court therefore affirm.

The mother and father of three-year-old minor, A.O. (hereafter Mother and Father), appeal from an order denying their petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, and from the ensuing judgment terminating their parental rights. Court affirm the order and judgment.

Almost 23 years after entering a no contest plea, defendant Roy Mills Cupis moved in San Mateo County Superior Court to withdraw his plea because he purportedly was not advised beforehand about the possible consequences to his immigration status, in violation of Penal Code section 1016.5 (section 1016.5). He appeals from the trial courts order denying his motion. Court affirm the order.

Plaintiff 1(800)REMINDS, INC., appeals from the order dismissing its complaint against defendant Prosodie Interactive (Canada), Inc. Plaintiff claims the trial court erred in concluding that the contract between the parties requires its complaint to be tried in Canada. Court affirm.

A.M. challenges the juvenile courts order requiring him to pay a proportionate share of the restitution previously awarded to the victim under joint and several liability of A.M. and his two co perpetrators. Court conclude the juvenile courts order was within its discretion and affirm.

Darrell Rucker appeals his convictions of murder and personal use of a firearm. Before this court, defendant argues his convictions cannot stand because the trial court committed a number of errors: (1) in adjudicating his pre-trial request for counsel and in denying his request for counsel on the first day of trial; (2) in excluding certain lay testimony concerning Youngbloods gang affiliation; (3) in engaging in misconduct during the trial when the court made comments to the jury and allowed extended argument in front of the jury concerning the manner in which defendant had conducted his defense pre-trial; (4) in allowing the prosecutor to use improper evidence to impeach defendant during his cross-examination, and in directing defendant to produce a document to the prosecutor; (5) in improperly using defendants juvenile prior as a strike; and (6) in failing to exercise its discretion in ordering the restitution fine it imposed. Defendant also argues the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, which violated defendants rights to compulsory process when the prosecutor failed to assist defendant in subpoenaing a defense witness. As we discuss, the extended colloquy in the jurys presence, coupled with the courts comments on defendants actions and tactics, prevented a fair trial. Court reverse.

A jury convicted defendant Jose Luis Martin of three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 211),[1] and found true in each count that he personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). The jury also convicted him of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of robbery ( 12021.1, subds. (a) & (b)(18)) and possession of ammunition ( 12316, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found that he had suffered a prior conviction under the Three Strikes law ( 1170.12, subds. (a) (d), 667, subds. (b) (i)), that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)(1)), and that he had served a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to 33 years in state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that his trial attorney was ineffective for not moving to suppress, on Miranda and involuntariness grounds, statements he made under police interrogation. He also contends that section 654 bars separate punishment for, on the one hand, possessing a firearm and ammunition, and, on the other hand, the firearm use enhancements on the robberies. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Andrew Halperin of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury upon Donna Hein in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1).[1] The two other counts alleged against defendantresidential robbery ( 211) and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime ( 136.1)which arose out of the same May 16, 2007 incident, were dismissed after the jury was unable to reach verdicts. In a separate proceeding, the jury found the recidivist allegations truethat defendant suffered four serious or violent felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)) which qualified as strikes for purposes of the three strikes law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and that defendant served four prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed a three strikes law sentence of 25 years to life, plus 4 years for the prior prison term findings. Court disagree and affirm.

A modification decision.

Defendant Juan Caldera Rodriguez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of three counts of possessing methamphetamine for sale, two counts of selling or transporting methamphetamine, one count of possessing cocaine for sale, and one count of selling or transporting cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, 11379, subd. (a), 11351, 11352, subd. (a).)[1] The jury also found that the three counts of possessing methamphetamine for sale took place upon the grounds of, or within 1,000 feet of, a public junior high school within the meaning of section 11353.6, subdivision (b). Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain one of the convictions for possessing methamphetamine for sale (count 3) and the true findings on the section 11353.6, subdivision (b) allegations. Court reverse his conviction as to count three, affirm the judgment in all other respects, and remand the matter for resentencing.

Taray Brown appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him on one count of aggravated assault. Brown contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jurys finding the assault had been committed by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. He also contends the trial court deprived him of his constitutional right to an impartial jury by improperly restricting voir dire and refusing to dismiss a potentially biased juror for cause. Court affirm.