CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Ronald Ash of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true an allegation that Ash inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a)). Ash admitted a prior strikea juvenile adjudication under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1) (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court sentenced Ash to state prison for an aggregate term of nine years comprised of: the midterm of three years, doubled to six years for the prior strike, plus an additional three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. On appeal, Ash asserts there was insufficient evidence that he inflicted great bodily injury and that he was the perpetrator. He further claims the courts use of a prior juvenile adjudication as a strike violated his Sixth Amendment rights and the eyewitness identification was unduly suggestive. Court affirm the conviction.

Defendant Perry Blair appeals from his conviction of first degree murder.[1]His principal contentions are: (1) uncorroborated accomplice testimony was used to convict him; (2) the trial court failed to give certain homicide instructions sua sponte or his attorney was ineffective for not requesting them; and (3) he was entitled to instructions on voluntary intoxication. Court affirm.

M.M. (Mother) appeals from a May 27, 2008 post permanent plan review order with respect to her daughter, S.M. (born in Aug. 1990), who was placed in a permanent plan of foster care with her maternal aunt in 2007. Because Mothers appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of a purported reasonable services factual finding that was not made as to S.M. on May 27, 2008, Court grant the motion of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to dismiss the appeal.

Felix W., father of 17-year‑old Tiffany W. and 16-year‑old Chelsea W., appeals in propria persona from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 & 361).[1] Because the evidence supports the juvenile courts findings, Court affirm the orders.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 et seq.),[1] I.C., mother of the minor children D.P. and S.P. (Mother, D.P. and S.P., respectively), appeals from a disposition order. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support an adjudication finding that she knew that the father of the minor children was sexually abusing them and she failed to protect the children. The reporters transcript from the adjudication/disposition hearing shows that the trial courts spoken finding is that Mother knew or should have known of the fathers abuse and failed to protect the minors. The section 300 dependency petition can be amended upon remand of this case to include the italicized language.
D.H., the father of the minor children (Father), also filed an appeal from the disposition order. His appointed appellate counsel informed this court that after examination of the record she was not able to identify any arguable issues on Fathers behalf. Court advised Father that he has the right to personally submit any contentions he feels the court should consider, and that his appeal would be dismissed in the absence of arguable issues. Because Father has not presented issues for this courts consideration, his appeal will be dismissed.

Daniel Vanegas (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his conviction of two counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 2 & 9), each with findings of the personal use of a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) and a gang enhancement ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court exercised its discretion pursuant to section 1385 and struck the gang enhancements. Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years for the assaults, each enhanced by four years for the use of a firearm for an aggregate term of seven years in state prison.
The judgment is affirmed.

On November 16, 2007, Noe Rojas was walking down the street when he was approached by Richard Adams on a bicycle. Adams demanded Rojass iPod, cellular phone and wallet and Rojas gave him the items. After looking through his wallet, Adams threatened Rojas, telling him he knew where he lived if Rojas reported the crime. Adams then gave him back his wallet and cellular phone but kept the iPod. The judgment is affirmed.

David Pyle appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to utilizing a fortified house for the purpose of selling narcotics and his admission that he suffered a prior felony conviction under the Three Strikes law. Upon our review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Court affirm.

Joel Grimaldo filed a petition for writ of review of the Workers Compensation Appeals Boards (Board) decision finding that his diabetes was not lit up or aggravated by an industrial injury to the foot, and thus had no causal connection to the injury sustained at Abbey Event Services (Abbey). Court find that the Board did not rely on substantial medical evidence to support the finding and annul the Boards decision.

E..B., Jr., born July 2006, came to the attention of the DCFS in September 2006 when his maternal aunt reported that his mother had been arrested and left the boy in her custody.[1] That same day, Father contacted the DCFS and stated that he was E.B., Jr.s father and that he was homeless but if he found a place to live he wanted the boy placed with him. At some point between the detention and the jurisdictional hearing Father went to the aunts home to see E.B., Jr. The aunt would not allow him to visit the boy because he smelled of marijuana.Father filed a timely appeal from the order denying visitation. The order is affirmed.

W.A. (Father) appeals from a June 25, 2008 order terminating parental rights to his daughter, H.A., born in December 2003, and referring her for adoption by a paternal cousin. We affirm the order because substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply. The June 25, 2008 order is affirmed.

After the juvenile court had set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]hearing on selection and implementation of a permanent plan for dependent Z.T., his mother, defendant and appellant A.N. (mother), filed a request for change in order under section 388 arguing that the juvenile court should have ordered an assessment of Z.T.s maternal grandmother for possible placement with the grandmother as guardian. The juvenile court denied the section 388 request, terminated parental rights, and freed Z.T. for adoption. The orders of the juvenile court from which mother appeals are affirmed.

Y.A. (mother) is mother to eight children, ages 13, 10, 9, 6, 4, 3, 2, and 8 months. The dependency proceedings at issue concern only mothers 8-month-old son O.M.; mother previously lost custody of her seven oldest children in Arizona. Mother appeals from the juvenile courts disposition order with respect to O.M., contending that the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm.

About 4:00 p.m. on July 8, 2007, defendant Ricardo Don Barkins approached a 51-year-old woman and grabbed her purse as she got into her parked car. She resisted, pulling her purse free from his grasp. Defendant got into a car that drove away. About a half an hour later, defendant approached a 16-year-old girl near a shopping mall, successfully stole her purse, and got into the backseat of a car that drove away. The judgment is affirmed.