CA Unpub Decisions

After a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court dismissed a dependency petition alleging then two-year-old D.R. was at risk of harm from her parents. Despite undisputed evidence that mother had repeatedly threatened to kill her daughter out of anger, the juvenile court concluded there was no basis for jurisdiction. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) challenges this ruling, arguing there is no substantial evidence to support dismissal of the allegations against the mother in light of the uncontroverted and repeated threats. Court agree and grant the petition, in part.

By petitions for extraordinary writ, S.M. (Mother) and R.V. (Father) challenge an 18-month permanency review hearing order, made on August 21, 2008, terminating family reunification services and setting a permanency plan hearing for their four children on January 5, 2009. We deny the parents petitions because substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts findings that reasonable services had been provided and that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) had made reasonable efforts to provide those services. The parents also fail to establish that the court abused its discretion in finding that there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting an extension of reunification services.

Mother J.L. (mother) seeks review of a juvenile court order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 related to her son, L.H. Court summarily deny the petition for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452).

Convicted by jury of several counts of robbery, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict as to one of the counts because one of his victims was not in constructive possession of her employers property. Court affirm because the employee was in constructive possession of her employers property as a matter of law.

Defendant was convicted by jury of felony receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation with a condition that defendant serve 60 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) her pre-arrest statement should have been suppressed; (2) her post-arrest statement should have been suppressed; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the receiving stolen property conviction; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants motion to reduce the crime to a misdemeanor; and (5) CALCRIM No. 220 is unconstitutional. Court affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the abstract of judgment fails to conform to the judgment as orally pronounced. The People concede, and we agree, that it does not. The abstract of judgment must be modified to reflect that the unlawful taking of a vehicle of which defendant was convicted in count seven was a misdemeanor, rather than a felony. Affirmed as modified.

After pleading guilty in case No. CM020563 to two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 and one count of misdemeanor child abuse, defendant Dustin Douglas Eattock was placed on formal probation for five years. The trial court imposed various fees and fines, including a restitution fine of $500 (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)). Defendant contends, and the People properly concede, that the courts imposition of a $1,400 restitution fine at sentencing was error. Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), requires the imposition of a restitution fine when a person is convicted of a felony, irrespective of any grant of probation. But where probation is granted, the restitution fine survives a subsequent revocation of probation. (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 820.) Thus, imposition of a second, or duplicate, restitution fine upon revocation of probation is unauthorized and must be stricken, notwithstanding the absence of an objection at sentencing. (Id. at pp. 821 823; People v. Arata (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 195, 201.)

On March 16, 2006, defendant Allona Marie OConnell approached John Houston, stated her intention to kill him, pointed a .22 caliber rifle at him and fired the weapon. The shot missed him. After waiving her rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694]), defendant admitted shooting at the victim, expressing her wish that he was dead.
Defendant was committed to a state hospital. After having been declared competent to stand trial, defendant entered a plea of no contest to assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count (discharge of a firearm with gross negligence) as well as case Nos. DT065597 and DT066071, and the prosecutors agreement not to argue for additional jail time besides the minimum.

Appellant N.L. is the presumed father of minors, six-year-old C.L., eight-year-old J.L., and 10-year-old M.G., all dependents of the juvenile court in Butte County. The juvenile court denied appellant reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6);[1]appellant appeals the trial courts ruling. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion, failed to comply with its statutory obligation to find he was the perpetrator of sexual abuse suffered by the minor children, and failed to state the factual basis for its findings on the record. Court affirm.

Defendant Gilbert Clyde Metz, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of child molestation. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to six years in state prison, and imposed various fines and fees. The judgment is modified by striking the fines imposed under Penal Code section 1465.7, subdivision (a) ($40) and Government Code sections 70372, subdivision (a) ($100) and 76104.6 ($20). As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the amended abstract of judgment accordingly and to send a certified copy of the second amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

K. S., Sr., (appellant), the father of K.S., Jr., and Km. (the minors), appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying his petitions for modification and terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 388, 395; further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his petitions for modification. Appellant also claims the order terminating parental rights must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to support the courts finding it was likely the minors would be adopted. Disagreeing with both of these claims, Court affirm.

C. G. (petitioner), the mother of A.A. (the minor), seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate orders of the juvenile court entered at the dispositional hearing denying reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Petitioner contends it was error to deny reunification services. Disagreeing with this contention, Court shall deny the petition.

Defendant Brian Bass (defendant) argues that his conviction for arson was based on insufficient evidence. Court affirm.

In the early morning hours of September 30, 2005, defendant Elias Zar Estrada Lopez went to the warehouse of his employer, Board Dudes, located in Corona, and was viewed on video surveillance loading 280 wooden pallets onto a flatbed truck and driving away. The pallets, estimated to be worth $4 per pallet if new, were not returned. Defendant was convicted of one count of grand theft by embezzlement. He now contends: Court conclude that there was no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.