CA Unpub Decisions

In this dissolution of marriage action, Husband challenges the trial court's child support order. Wife returned with the parties' three minor children to her native Bolivia. Husband claims the trial court denied him due process by ordering him to pay child support when it has no jurisdiction over custody and visitation of the children. Husband also claims that if a child support award is proper, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider Husband's cost of travel to Bolivia and the difference in the cost of living between California and Bolivia. Court remand for the trial court to hold a hearing to consider the amount of support in light of the cost of living in Bolivia. In all other respects we affirm.

Nelson Isaias Guevara appeals from the postjudgment order revoking probation and judgment executing a previously stayed five-year state prison sentence. Court affirm.

M. H. appeals from an order of the juvenile court committing him to the California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of 16 years based on an offense found true in a sustained Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. The sustained offense is continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a).) Appellant challenges the DJJ commitment on multiple grounds and also argues that the court abused its discretion in committing him to DJJ, and in selecting the maximum period of confinement. Court reverse the DJJ commitment order.

Eddy Dale Speer appeals from judgment after conviction by jury of attempted second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211, 664.)[1] The jury found true an allegation that appellant used a knife in the commission of the crime. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1).) In a bifurcated bench trial, the court found true allegations that appellant suffered prior serious felony convictions for bank robbery (18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)) and for robbery ( 211) within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (a)(1), 1192.7, subdivision (c) and 1170.12, subdivisions (b)(2) and (c)(2). The trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life in state prison with the possibility of parole for the attempted robbery ( 667, subd. (e)(2), 1170.12, subds. (b)(2) & (c)(2)) and two consecutive five year prison terms for the prior serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a consecutive one year prison term for use of the knife. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Court affirm.

A.W., the mother of four-year-old I.C., appeals from the juvenile courts disposition order sustaining dependency jurisdiction over I.C. Court conclude that the order is supported by substantial evidence of A.W.s continued involvement with illegal drugs. Court affirm.

M.V. (appellant) appeals from the order continuing him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) upon a finding that he committed misdemeanor battery on the mother of his child. (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1).) He was continued home on probation. The juvenile court set a maximum period of confinement of three years, four months, aggregating the confinement time on this petition and a prior sustained petition alleging that appellant made a criminal threat in violation of Penal Code section 422. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he committed battery because there was no evidence he acted intentionally. Appellant further contends, and respondent concedes, that the juvenile court lacked the discretion to set a maximum period of confinement because appellant was placed home on probation. Court strike the maximum period of confinement and otherwise affirm the order under review.

John Anthony St. Pierre appeals a judgment committing him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen. Code, 2962 et seq.) after a court trial.[1] On May 2, 2006, St. Pierre, while a prisoner, committed an aggravated battery on a correctional officer. ( 4501.1, subd. (a).) He pled guilty to that commitment offense. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that St. Pierre's mental disorder caused or was an aggravating factor in committing that crime. Court affirm.

Appellant is the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. Respondent is the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (MWD) is both an intervenor and respondent and has filed its own respondent's brief. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Robert Becerra purports to appeal from a May 23, 2008 postjudgment order denying his restitution fine modification request purportedly filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1237. Court dismiss the appeal.

J.G. appeals the order sustaining the allegations in the juvenile dependency petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 342, declaring his son A.G. a dependent minor under section 300, subdivision (a) and removing the minor from his care. J.G. claims the court erred in concluding that striking the childs face and buttocks with the fathers hands constituted serious physical harm or placed him at risk of such harm. As we shall explain, Court agree. The Department of Children and Family Services (the DCFS) failed to demonstrate that J.G.s conduct was sufficiently serious to justify the assumption of jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (a) and thus, the court erred in ordering A.G. be removed from his fathers care. Consequently, Court reverse and remand.

Appellant Jennifer L. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile courts denial of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. She argues that the court should have granted a hearing on the petition. Court affirm.

C.G. (Father) appeals from the June 30, 2008 dispositional order requiring him to attend individual counseling. Court reject Fathers challenge and affirm the order.

A jury convicted 23-year-old Micah Patterson of unlawful sexual penetration of an unconscious person in violation of Penal Code section 289, subdivision (d).[1] The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years subject to numerous conditions, including one year in jail and registration as a sex offender pursuant to section 290. On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to reversal due to instructional error relating to voluntary intoxication and mistake of fact. Defendant also argues that substitute defense counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately investigate all possible grounds for new trial. Finally, defendant maintains the prosecutor committed misconduct by knowingly presenting false evidence at trial. Court shall affirm the judgment.

Jeffrey Frankel appeals from a marriage dissolution judgment that resolved contested issues between him and his former wife, Brenden Frankel. Jeffrey claims the trial court erred by: (1) barring from evidence for any purpose testimony Brenden gave in a criminal case against him; (2) not dividing community stock options equally; and (3) ordering him, but not Brenden, to pay sanctions. Court affirm the judgment with the exception of the award of sanctions against Jeffrey, and on that point Court reverse.