CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant, Fernando Rey Gomez, pled no contest to possession of a sharp instrument while confined in a penal institution (Pen. Code, 4502, subd. (a)),[1]and assaulting an inmate by means of force likely to cause great bodily harm ( 4501) and admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)). After Gomez requested immediate sentencing and waived the preparation of a probation report, the court sentenced him to a six-year term, which it ran consecutive to the term Gomez was already serving. On appeal Gomez contends his abstract of judgment contains certain errors. Court will find partial merit to this contention and direct the court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment. In all other respects, Court affirm.

L.A. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her four children. She contends the court erred by not finding termination would be detrimental to the children. In her view, she had a continuing, beneficial relationship with them. On review, Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Petitioner in propria persona 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 his daughter S.G. Court will deny the petition.

On appeal, appellant raises six issues. First, he contends that the judgment must be reversed because the predicate offenses on counts two and three were tried in an improper county. Second, the trial court erroneously permitted the prosecution to present evidence of alleged uncharged sexual conduct. Third, the trial court's charge to the jury improperly permitted the jury to find him guilty of the charged offenses based solely on his alleged propensity to commit such offenses. Fourth, the court erred in permitting testimony regarding Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. Fifth, he was denied his right to present a defense of financial motive on the part of the victim. Lastly, he was sentenced in violation of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (127 S.Ct. 856). For reasons that follow, Court affirm the judgment.

Appellants Francis Doyle and Anthony Caselli appeal an order to image and search hard drives and a protective order in conjunction with a probate matter.

The appeal herein is authorized by California Welfare and Institutions Code section 800, subdivision (a). The minor K.R. appeals from the dispositional order in a juvenile court proceeding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.
A juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed by the Santa Clara County District Attorney on December 22, 2008, charging a count of misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)), and a second count, a misdemeanor offense of driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b).

D.W. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26)[1] concerning her son, I.W. (born 1998), and two daughters, Y.W. (born 2001) and A.W. (born 2003). She challenges the evidence supporting the juvenile courts finding that I.W. likely would be adopted and rejection of her evidence and argument that the case came with the exceptions to termination described by section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) (no termination if termination would be detrimental to the child because the parents maintained regular visitation and the child could benefit from continuing the relationship). She also contends that the notice given pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) was deficient. Court affirm the judgment.

M.A. appeals the trial courts ruling terminating her parental rights to her three children. On appeal, she asserts the court erred in finding the parent-child bond exception to termination did not apply. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)).

Defendant Janet Lee Sims was convicted by no-contest plea of commercial burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459[1] in exchange for a negotiated disposition of felony probation. While on probation, she was convicted by plea of petty theft in violation of sections 484, subdivision (a) and 666 with a prior conviction, and she admitted that this new offense constituted a probation violation, both in exchange for a promise of reinstatement of felony probation, but with the understanding that she would be kept in custody until she could be placed in a long term drug-treatment program after serving 150 days of a 365-day jail sentence. After being placed in a drug-treatment program, defendant was later charged in both cases with violating probation after her unauthorized early departure from the program. She admitted the violation and was sentenced to state prison for the upper term of three years for the petty theft with a prior conviction. The court also imposed a concurrent two-year term for the commercial burglary conviction. Defendant appeals and Court affirm.

Defendant James Edward Stokes was charged by information filed May 10, 1988, with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1);[1] count 1), forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2); count 2), and forcible lewd conduct on a child under 14 ( 288, subd. (b); count 3.) The information also included great bodily injury ( 12022.8) and kidnapping ( 667.8, subd. (a)) enhancement allegations as to counts 2 and 3. Defendant pleaded no contest to the charges and admitted the enhancement allegations. On July 10, 1989, the trial court sentenced him to 17 years in state prison.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and facts but which raises no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The order of May 27, 2009, extending defendants commitment pursuant to section 2970 is affirmed.

In July 2009, defendant Domingo Ismal Ramirez pleaded no contest to felony false imprisonment and two misdemeanors, spousal battery and resisting a peace officer. He also admitted two prison priors. The court sentenced defendant to two years in prison and imposed two concurrent county jail sentences in connection with the misdemeanor convictions. Defendant filed a timely appeal. Court affirm the judgment.

On June 17, 2006, appellant, Rudy Anthony Esparza, turned his truck in front of another vehicle causing a three-vehicle accident. Esparza got out of his truck and checked to see if the other drivers were injured. He then returned to his truck and began yelling at and hitting his ex-wife, who was a passenger in his truck, because she wanted to call the police. Esparza initially told highway patrol officers that his ex-wife was driving. When one witness told the officers that Esparza was driving, Esparza started fighting with the witness, and Esparza was subdued with pepper spray and taken into custody (case No. F06904276-3).

In Loeb v. Record (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 431, this court concluded that a law firm failed to follow the correct procedures for enforcing an arbitration award in an attorney-client fee dispute. Our decision reversed an order that directed the clerk of the superior court to deliver $35,028.82 to the law firm to satisfy the arbitration award.

After our decision, the law firm filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award. The superior court granted the petition, entered judgment in favor of the law firm, and again directed the clerk to deliver the $35,028.82 to the law firm. The client appealed, contending that the fee dispute should be resolved in a trial rather than by treating the arbitration award as binding.
Court conclude the order confirming the arbitration award is supported by sufficient evidence and is consistent with applicable law. The judgment will be affirmed.