CA Unpub Decisions

Richard Allen Robledo pled guilty to all counts in an eight-count information charging him with grand theft of personal property, petty theft with priors, three counts of second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, criminal threats, and grand theft of a firearm. He also admitted various enhancement allegations and prior convictions. Robledo was sentenced to 19 years in state prison. On appeal, Robledos counsel filed a brief requesting this courts independent review of the record under People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Our review of the record shows no arguable issues, and Court affirm the judgment.

P. J. (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating jurisdiction over A. R. (A.), her daughter born February 2000, and placing her in the custody of her father (father) , subject to further order of the family court. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, 362.4; undesignated section references are to that code.) Appellant contends the court erred in finding noneed for continued judicial supervision, and in failing to find regarding the reasonableness of reunification services offered to mother. Court find neither contention persuasive, and affirm the order terminating jurisdiction.

Both parents appeal from the order terminating parental rights to their Indian child. Father contends that the evidence was insufficient due to the lack of recent Indian expert testimony. Father also contends that the juvenile court abdicated its duty to apply a statutory exception to the preference in the law for adoption. Mother joins in fathers arguments without claiming independent error. Court reject fathers contentions and affirm the order.

Defendant and appellant appeals from a final judgment after an adjudication and declaration of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, appellant D.S.'s appointed counsel was unable to identify any arguable issues and so informed this Court. The Court advised appellant that appellant has the right to personally submit any contentions appellant feels the Court should consider and further that the appeal would be dismissed in the absence of arguable issues. Appellant has not presented any issues for the Court's consideration.

Bret H. (father) appeals from orders denying his petition under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1]and terminating parental rights to Alana H. He makes no argument concerning the termination of parental rights, but contends the denial of his section 388 petition was an abuse of discretion. Court affirm.

E.N. appeals from the order terminating reunification services in the dependency proceeding concerning her daughter E. Court affirm.

On December 17, 2007, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department detective Anthony Valenzuela and his partner were performing random license plate checks, searching for warrants and stolen vehicles. They pulled behind a Honda, checked the license plate, and determined that the car was stolen. The detectives initiated a pursuit. The driver ran stop signs and traffic signals and drove on the wrong side of the road. The Honda eventually crashed into a wall. Valenzuela saw the driver get out of the car, run through an alley, and jump a cinder-block wall. The driver was apprehended and identified as appellant Douglas Place. Appellant left a shaved Toyota key in the Hondas ignition. The Hondas registered owner confirmed that the car had been stolen, and he did not know appellant. The judgment is affirmed.

Justine H. seeks writ relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26 subd. (l);[1] Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from denial by the juvenile court of her request for an order requiring the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) to investigate placement of her two dependent children in the home of their maternal grandparents. ( 361.3.) This order was made at a hearing conducted at the conclusion of the statutory limit for reunification ( 366.22), at which time the court entered an order setting a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing.[2]
Court dismiss the petition because Justine H. lacks standing to seek appellate review of the order denying relative placement.

The facts underlying this appeal involve a shooter sporting a blue do-rag, blue beanie, and a blue jacket, who jumped out of a car and announced something like this is a Meadowview killer before he opened fire on a group of friends, at least one of whom was a member of the Meadowview Bloods street gang. In addition to the shooters pronouncement, which strongly suggested the shooting was gang related and performed for the benefit of the shooters gang, a prosecution expert testified regarding the criminal activities of the Valley Hi Crips, opining that the shooting was for the gangs benefit and defendant was a validated Crips gang member. The expert was permitted to testify regarding five incidents of prior uncharged misconduct allegedly involving defendant. While we conclude the prosecutors theory for admission of the testimony was erroneous and the testimony itself suspect under sound rules governing gang expert opinion, any error did not render defendants trial fundamentally unfair and, consequently, did not violate his federal constitutionalright to due process. (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 70 [116 L.Ed.2d 385]; People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439.) As a result reversal is not required, because Court believe it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt the jury would have found defendant guilty even in the absence of the disputed testimony based on compelling evidence, including three eyewitness identifications as well as physical evidence. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [17 L.Ed.2d 705] (Chapman).)

Defendant Winson Liang brings this pro se judgment roll appeal from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Tommy and Terresa Torres, after he agreed to settle the case in open court and the judge entered the settlement terms into the minute order of those proceedings. Liangs challenge to a written stipulation has no merit, and Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Bradley Eric Price of involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (b)), and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to a three-year prison term. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of uncharged prior acts of domestic violence committed by defendant against his wife. Court affirm.

In May 2007, defendant Jeremy David Noriega was at a restaurant with his sister. They got into an argument, and defendant screamed at her, grabbed her by the hair, and threw her against a patrons truck. The patron intervened and asked defendant, Can we calm down? In response, defendant asked the patron whether he want[ed] some of this. The patron replied, I dont even want to be here. Defendant came toward the patron, shoving him and striking his head with a closed fist. The patron fell to the ground and defendant kicked him in the head, rendering him unconscious. He required five stitches and treatment for a concussion. After defendant was arrested and advised of his rights, he told an officer the patron wanted to get involved in the argument between defendant and his sister. Defendant explained that they butted heads and the patron went to the ground. Defendant denied hitting or kicking him. The judgment is affirmed.

In the early morning hours of May 27, 2007, defendant Frank Anthony Medina, Jr., removed the air conditioning unit from the window of his 16-month-old daughters bedroom and entered the home belonging to his estranged spouse. Defendant raped his spouse twice, forcibly penetrated her vagina with a hairbrush and her anus with his finger, and forced her to orally copulate him. After ejaculating, he passed out on the couch. The victim escaped her home with her daughter and the police were contacted. Officers found defendant sleeping in the nude on the couch in the victims home. At the time of the offenses, defendant was on probation, after having been convicted of misdemeanor battery on the same victim, and had been ordered to have no contact with her. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellants, the mother and father of the minors, appeal from the juvenile courts orders denying mothers request for modification and terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 388, 395.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred by denying her modification request, by failing to find an exception to adoption and by finding the minors adoptable. Father joins in these arguments. Finding these contentions without merit, Court affirm.