CA Unpub Decisions

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, defendant Antonio Deshawn Owens was tried by jury and convicted of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459/460, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to serve the mitigated term of two years in prison. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress based on the Remers-Harvey-Madden rule. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant D.C. appeals from the juvenile courts dispositional order committing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) for a maximum term of eight years. Appellants counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting that Court conduct an independent review of the entire record on appeal. Having done so, Court affirm the juvenile courts dispositional order.

Lawrence Lamond Phillips appeals from the trial courts orders denying his motion to vacate the judgment and denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. He concurrently seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Court conclude, because Phillips knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea, the trial court properly denied his motions to vacate the judgment and petition for writ of error coram nobis and, accordingly, Court affirm the trial courts orders. In addition, since Phillips has failed to show that his plea was involuntary, Court deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Robin G. Rolfes (Robin) appeals from a postjudgment order modifying her spousal support award. Court find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirm.

Plaintiff Norval Crutcher was defamed by the Chandler Lodge Foundation. Crutcher alleges that the trial court made numerous errors in the course of the bench trial. Court reverse the award of costs, which was made on the basis of an erroneous decision that the Foundation was the prevailing party, and remand for a new determination of those costs; in all other respects Court affirm the judgment.

On November 27, 2006, an information was filed charging appellant Michael Terry Ward with multiple offenses under the Penal Code against two female children, K.K. and A.R.[1]Regarding K.K., the information alleged that on May 21, 2001, appellant engaged in kidnapping to commit rape ( 209, subd. (b)(1), count 1), aggravated sexual assault on a child involving oral copulation ( 269, subd. (a)(4), count 2), forcible oral copulation ( 288a, subd. (c)(2)), count 3), and a lewd act upon a child ( 288, subd. (a), count 4). Regarding A.R., the information alleged that on October 4, 2005, appellant engaged in kidnapping to commit rape ( 209, subd. (b)(1), count 5), aggravated sexual assault upon a child ( 269, subd. (a)(1), counts 6 & 7), aggravated sexual assault upon a child involving sodomy ( 269, subd. (a)(3), counts 8 & 9), aggravated sexual assault upon a child involving oral copulation ( 269, subd. (a)(4), counts 10 & 11), forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)), counts 12 & 13), sodomy by use of force ( 286, subd. (c)(2), counts 14 & 15), forcible oral copulation ( 288a, subd. (c)(2), counts 16 & 17), and lewd acts upon a child ( 288, subd. (a), counts 18 through 20). On the eve of trial, the trial court dismissed counts 3, 4, and 12 through 20 at the prosecutors request ( 1385). On November 7, 2007, a jury found appellant guilty as charged, and found true allegations under the One Strike law ( 667.61, subds. (a), (d)) in connection with counts 2 and 6 through 11. The trial court determined that the prior conviction allegations were true, and sentenced appellant to a total term of 265 years to life.

City of Pasadena Fire Department (City) appeals a judgment and the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The City placed Carter Stephens on a nonindustrial disability retirement after the Fire and Police Retirement System Board (Board) determined that he was psychologically unfit for duty as a firefighter. Stephens sued the City, alleging violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). The jury found that Stephens was able to perform the essential functions of his job with reasonable accommodation and that the decision to subject him to a fitness-for-duty examination and retire him was discriminatory and retaliatory. The jury also found that the City failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for Stephenss perceived disability and failed to engage in an interactive process, and awarded him a total of $1,175,847 in damages.

Juan Garcia appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to conspiracy to transport cocaine (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and his admission that the amount of cocaine exceeded four kilograms within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision (a)(2). Pursuant to his negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for the upper term of five years, plus an additional term of five years for the weight enhancement. No request for a certificate of probable cause was made. The judgment is affirmed.

After suffering a sustained juvenile adjudication for first degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 459, minor E.S. (appellant) was placed on home probation, subject to certain terms and conditions. Appellant appeals from the juvenile courts order imposing a maximum confinement term of six years and from certain probation conditions specified in the order. Appellant contends the maximum confinement term must be stricken, as must the probation condition prohibiting him from using or possessing poisons, because neither was included in the judgment as orally pronounced by the juvenile court. Appellant further contends the probation conditions prohibiting him from using or possessing narcotics, being in the presence of any unlawfully armed person, participating in any type of gang activity, and possessing any dangerous or deadly weapon were vague and overbroad, violating his state and federal constitutional rights, and that these conditions must be modified to correct the constitutional defects. Court modify the juvenile courts order as set forth below and affirm the order as modified.

This appeal is from an order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] over minor M.F. Appellants L.G. (mother), M.F. (father), and siblings J.F., A.C., and A.A. contend the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts finding that the sibling exception to terminating parental rights under section 366.26 subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v) did not apply. Appellants further contend that postjudgment events concerning M.F.s prospective adoption provide a basis for reversing the order terminating parental rights. Court affirm the judgment.

Michael Pitts appeals from the judgment entered upon resentencing following remand by this court in People v. Pitts (Jan. 29, 2008, modified Feb. 22, 2008, B193004) [nonpub. opn.] (Pitts I). He contends that the sentence imposed violated Penal Code section 654. Court affirm.

D.P., Sr. (father), father of D.P., appeals from an order of the juvenile court summarily denying his Welfare & Institutions Code section 388 petition. Father contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying father an evidentiary hearing on the petition because father adequately pled a prima facie case showing changed circumstances or new evidence. Court find no abuse of discretion, and therefore affirm.

Juan Antonio Gonzalez appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, his no contest plea to possession for sale of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c)). He was sentenced to prison for a total of five years, consisting of the middle term of two years, plus three years for the prior conviction enhancement. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officers reasonable suspicion determination relied on an anonymous tip lacking sufficient indicia of reliability and because there were no specific articulable facts to cause the officer to reasonably suspect appellant of criminal activity. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the judgment.

The trial court erred in denying defendants Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Sony) and Peter Gibergas (Giberga) motion to stay the court action pending conclusion of the arbitration proceeding. Accordingly, the petition is granted. Court affirmed.