CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant was sentenced to state prison after the trial court gave an indicated sentence. He appeals from the sentence and challenges the denial of his motion to vacate his guilty plea, which challenged the validity of the plea.

Defendant and appellant Donald Curtis Jones appeals after he pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377), and one count of intent to produce a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11390). His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396] (Anders), and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no specific issues on appeal. Defendant has personally filed a supplemental brief arguing that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We have reviewed the record in its entirety and considered all the suggested avenues of inquiry. Court find no error and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Manuel Miguel Cordova appeals following a guilty plea to attempted murder without premeditation or deliberation (Pen. Code, 664, 187) and making a criminal threat ( 422). Court affirm.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition, the opposition, and the reply thereto, which we conclude adequately address the issues raised by the petition. Court have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
Petitioners are directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties. Costs are awarded to Petitioners.

A jury convicted appellant, Jesus Gamboa Martinez, of possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) and found true an arming enhancement (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c)). On September 4, 2007, the court sentenced Martinez to an aggregate term of six years, the mitigated term of two years on the substantive offense and a four-year arming enhancement. On appeal, Martinez contends the court erred when it: 1) denied his motions to traverse and quash the warrant and his motion to disclose previously sealed discovery, and 2) admitted certain evidence. Court affirm.

Defendant Candido Juares Servin broke into a series of homes and committed sexual assaults and other crimes against women and girls he found inside. A jury found him guilty of 19 charges and the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 106 years two months to life. He challenges his sentence on several grounds. We modify the judgment to stay, pursuant to Penal Code section 654, an eight month sentence for false imprisonment. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

Timothy Contreras committed suicide while in prison. His surviving relatives, Vickie Contreras, Jess Contreras, Rosale Jean Contreras, and Virgil Wallace Contreras (collectively Contreras), sued the State of California and its agents (the State) for wrongful death. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit and Contreras appealed from the order of dismissal. The appeal was dismissed because no opening brief was filed. Contreras then filed a judgment of dismissal and appealed once again. The State contends the appeal must be dismissed and we agree.

The court found that appellant, A.S., was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, after it sustained allegations charging him with four counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422). On appeal, A.S. contends: 1) the court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss; and 2) the court erred in admitting certain evidence. Court find merit to A.S.s first contention and reverse.

On October 14, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. members of the Madera County Narcotics Enforcement Team arrived to conduct a parole search at the house where appellant, Roger Royal Shannon Kroupa, was living. After announcing their presence, a woman opened the door and led them to a bedroom where Kroupa was lying on a bed. On the floor next to the bed, an agent found a coin purse containing a small amount of heroin wrapped in plastic. Inside a laundry basket in the room, the officers found a purse belonging to Audrey McBride. The purse contained several credit cards and a check book belonging to McBride. McBride was contacted and stated that the purse was stolen during a burglary on October 2, 2005. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, K.V., appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights to J.G. and D.G. pursuant to section 366.26 and choosing a permanent plan of adoption. Appellant contends the court erred in failing to apply the parent/child relationship exception rather than accepting adoption as the final plan for the children. Court affirm the juvenile courts judgment.

L.K. appeals from orders terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to his two children.[1] Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated September 16, 2008, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). We extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief, which he eventually did in November 2008. In his letter, appellant asks us to reconsider the trial courts denial of his section 388 petition for reunification services. Having reviewed the appellate record as summarized below, Court conclude appellants remarks do not amount to claims that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994) and will affirm.

T.S. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26 ) to his twin daughters.[1] Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter filed October 8, 2008, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). We thereafter extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief which he has done. In it, he contends respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) failed to contact his family members apparently regarding placement when the information had been provided. He also states he had insufficient counsel though he does not explain how so. Having reviewed the appellate record as summarized below, Court conclude appellants contentions do not amount to claims that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994) and will affirm.

This case arises from a contested 18-month review hearing at which the juvenile court terminated petitioners reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his two children. Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the juvenile courts orders. Court will deny the petition.

This case arises from a contested 18-month review hearing at which the juvenile court terminated petitioners reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her three children. Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the juvenile courts orders. Court deny the petition.