CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Jeffrey Allan Hill appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of first degree felony murder involving the theft of methamphetamine from the victims residence. Appellant contends: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 376, Possession of Recently Stolen Property as Evidence of Crime[1]; and (2) the court should have stayed his sentence for possession of the methamphetamine under Penal Code section 654. Court agree with appellants latter argument. Court shall order the judgment modified accordingly and otherwise shall affirm the judgment.

Appellant, Columbus Roy Robison (Roy), and respondent Carol D. Robison (Carol),[1]dissolved their marriage after more than 42 years. Roy contends the trial court erred in finding that certain assets were community property. According to Roy, his social security disability benefits, income from a separate property rental house, savings bonds purchased through his employment, and various guns that were gifted to him should have been credited to him as separate property. Roy further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Carol spousal support.

Appellant Adam Valdobinos appeals from a judgment of 15 years to life plus one year. He contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. He also contends that the abstract of judgment does not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. Court will affirm the judgment and remand for the superior court to determine the correct presentence custody credit.

Stephanie Gutierrez and Luis Ramirez were shot to death on the evening of January 13, 2007. Defendant Edgar Ivan Zavala was tried for the first degree murder of the victims. In his first trial, the jury convicted defendant of the second degree murder of Stephanie Gutierrez. The jury found it was not true that he personally discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury or death. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the second count of murder with Luis Ramirez as the victim, and a mistrial was declared.

On October 24, 2008, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging appellant, J.J., committed misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)). On January 20, 2009, the juvenile court found the allegation true at the conclusion of a contested jurisdiction hearing. On February 11, 2009, the juvenile court found J.J. to be a ward of the court, removed him from his parents custody, placed him on probation, gave him credit for one day in custody, ordered him to complete 75 hours of community service, placed him on electronic monitoring for 60 days, and placed him on probation upon various terms and conditions.
This appeal is hereby dismissed.

J.A. (father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) as to his son W.[1] Father contends the court erred by finding W. adoptable and rejecting fathers argument that he had established such a relationship with W. that termination would be detrimental to the child. On review, Court affirm.

T.S. and K.S. (hereafter grandparents) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of their daughter, C.S., to her two children, A.S. and M.S., pursuant to the provisions of Family Code section 7820 et seq.[1] C.S. did not receive actual notice of the hearing on the petition until after it had occurred. She argues that her right to due process was violated because she was denied the opportunity to be present and be heard in opposition to the petition. Court agree that under the facts of this case her right to due process was violated and reverse the order terminating her parental rights.

Petitioner (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent courts orders issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]hearing as to her daughter S. and three sons, A., I., and N. Court deny the petition.

Defendant Metin Reza Gurel appeals from his convictions for rape and forcible oral copulation, contending there was insufficient evidence of the victims lack of consent to support those convictions. We disagree. There was substantial evidence that defendant committed rape and forcible oral copulation by means of duress, menace, and fear of immediate bodily injury. We therefore affirm the judgment. (Defendant does not challenge his convictions on three counts of making criminal threats, domestic battery, and stalking, conceding the evidence of those crimes was sufficient.) Defendant also petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Before and after defendants trial, the prosecuting attorney was having a sexual relationship with a police officer who investigated this case and testified at trial. Defendant contends the failure to provide this allegedly exculpatory evidence to him constituted a violation under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady). We conclude the evidence would not have been material, and defendant has failed to show a reasonable probability it would have changed the outcome of the trial. Court deny defendants petition.

A holding company, formed to acquire and operate a hospital, appeals from an order that denied its special motion to strike three causes of action in a complaint by one of its doctors. The doctor alleged that the holding company conspired to frighten and intimidate him in retaliation for his views on hospital policies and practices, made false police reports, and aided and abetted in the malicious planting of a handgun in his vehicle which led to his arrest.
Court affirm the order denying the special motion to strike because the action does not arise from protected activity under Californias anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16). The principal thrust or gravamen of each of the subject causes of action arises from noncommunicative acts and other nonprotected activity. At most, the allegations involving protected free speech or petitioning activity are incidental to unprotected acts.

Chester C., Jr. appeals from the termination of parental rights to his son, Chester C. III (Chester). The father contends reversal is required because the adoptability finding is not supported by substantial evidence, the beneficial relationship exception to adoption should have been applied, and the notice given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) was inadequate. Court affirm.

The mother appeals from the juvenile courts rulings under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 388 and 366.26. (All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Court find that none of her contentions has merit and affirm the orders.

Elizabeth M. (Mother) appeals from the May 18, 2009 juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to Josie P. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Josies presumed father (C.C.) and Josies alleged father (Albert P.) are not parties to the appeal. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

A jury convicted Jose Antonio Martinez, the defendant herein, of the second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187)[1]of Cesar Sanchez. The jury found true an allegation that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. ( 12022.53, subd. (d).) The district attorney had alleged that defendant committed the crime to benefit a street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), but the jury returned no finding on that allegation and the trial court dismissed it on the prosecutions motion.