CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant, father of Ka.V. and T.S. (collectively, the minors), and their sibling, A.S.,[1] appeals following a hearing at which the juvenile court ordered the termination of parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Representing himself, appellant claims: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) he was entitled to be present at hearings; and (3) the juvenile court erred in finding the minors adoptable. Finding no merit to these claims, Court shall affirm.

A jury found defendant Eugene Jacobb McBride guilty of carjacking, unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, and petty theft with priors. The court found true he had two prior strikes, two prior serious felony convictions, and two prior prison terms. It sentenced him to 35 years to life in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred by: (1) admitting statements he made to police at the time of his arrest; (2) modifying CALCRIM No. 362 (false statement); and (3) denying his motion to dismiss his strikes (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497). Finding no error, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Sherman Johnson was convicted after pleading no contest to failing to register as a sex offender within five days of his birthday (Pen. Code, 290.018, subd. (b)). He now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in including in the abstract of judgment a $242.29 booking fee and a $27.22 classification fee that were not orally pronounced by the court in defendants presence. The People concede the error and seek remand. Court agree the court erred, but disagree that remand is necessary; instead, Court shall strike the fees not imposed at sentencing and otherwise affirm the judgment.

After defendant Larry Lynn Ganner made the tires of his vehicle break traction with the road while accelerating at a green light, a nearby police officer made a traffic stop. A subsequent search revealed defendant was in possession of narcotics and a stolen loaded handgun. The trial court denied defendants motion to suppress evidence, and he pled guilty to possession of cocaine base for sale and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant also admitted a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced him to seven years four months in prison. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Defendant argues his vehicle tires breaking traction with the road did not give the police reasonable suspicion to believe any traffic violation had occurred. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Father N.H. appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his two young daughters, claiming it is based on insufficient evidence of adoptability and claiming the department abused its discretion in denying his petition for modification. Court affirm.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant Joseph George Sencion and his codefendants, who are not parties to this appeal, waived their right to a preliminary examination. An information alleged drug, firearm and gang charges, all committed on or about July 30, 2008. Defendant pled no contest to possession of cocaine for sale and active gang participation, and admitted a firearm enhancement. Other charges were dismissed.

Michael D. and Cynthia R. (together, the parents) appeal juvenile court orders terminating parental rights to their minor children A. D., Joseph D., E. D. and Henry D. (collectively, the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] The parents contend: (1) substantial evidence does not support the court's finding of "serious damage" under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) (ICWA); (2) the court erred by finding that terminating parental rights would not substantially interfere with the minors' connection to their tribal community; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding there was no beneficial parent-child relationship between Cynthia and the minors; (4) the court should have selected guardianship as the minors' permanent plans because the grandparents' only reason for adopting was financial; and (5) defective ICWA notice to the minors' tribe requires reversal.

Herbert De Angelo Brown appeals his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that his trial attorney provided constitutionally deficient representation by failing to request an instruction on a lesser related offense, brandishing a weapon. Court affirm the conviction.

Eric Moreno Fuentes (defendant) appeals his conviction for residential burglary and attempted murder. He contends that the court should have suppressed statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), and that the court violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment when it instructed the jury and permitted the prosecutor to comment on arguable adoptive admissions made during questioning. He contends that the courts refusal to instruct on assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury, a lesser related offense, violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present a defense. Finally, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to permit the jury to determine that the attempted murder was deliberate and premeditated. Finding no error, Court affirm the judgment.

R.L. (Father) and C.J. (Mother) appeal the termination of their parental rights to T.L. at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.
Father and Mother now claim as follows:
1. Both Mother and Father contend that the juvenile court erred by finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply and by terminating parental rights.
2. Mother claims that the juvenile court erred by refusing to find that the sibling exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v) applied and terminating Mothers parental rights.
Court find no error. Hence, Court affirm the termination of parental rights.

On October 14, 2007, about 1:36 a.m., police responded to a call of gunshots being fired at the 1000 block of East George Street in Banning. When officers arrived, they spoke to several residents of the neighborhood. The residents stated that they heard a large group of people arguing outside. Later, the residents heard gunshots. Dispatch advised the officer that one of the victims had reported that defendant and appellant, George Ralph Robinson, was the person who had fired the gun during the earlier dispute.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition thereto, which we conclude adequately address the issues raised by the petition. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)