CA Unpub Decisions

A.B. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating parental rights to her two children, Aaron, born in April 2003, and Ashley, born in May 2004. We affirm the order. The record does not support a finding of judicial error in the trial court in not accepting Mothers claim of the requisite beneficial relationship to overcome termination of her parental rights [beneficial parent child relationship exception]. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(1).)

In June 2006, appellant posted a bail bond for defendant John Eder Catano in the sum of $170,000. Catano was charged in a felony complaint with 12 counts, including unlawful use of personal identity, theft, and forgery. He appeared in court on the date initially set for his arraignment, July 20, 2006. The court continued the arraignment on the complaint to August 10, 2006, and ordered Catano to appear. On August 10, 2006, however, Catano failed to appear. At 3:10 p.m., the court, in the person of Commissioner Harold J. Mulville, noted in open court, on the record, that Catano had failed to appear without good cause. Commissioner Mulville ordered the bond forfeited and issued a no-bail hold. The same day, Judge Laura Priver issued a no bail bench warrant. The next day, August 11, notice of bond forfeiture was mailed to appellant. The order denying the motion to vacate the bond forfeiture is affirmed.

Appellant Derrick Lavar Ferguson was charged by information with a violation of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) (felon in possession of a handgun). The information further charged that appellant had suffered three prior convictions. On appeal, appellant contends the jury committed prejudicial misconduct and that the trial court erred in refusing to admit hearsay evidence that another party had claimed ownership of the gun. Court disagree and affirm.

M.H. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to Z.M., her daughter born in December 2005. Mother contends that reversal of the order is required on dual grounds: (1) Mothers lack of legal representation rendered the permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26)[1]fundamentally unfair; and (2) notice mandated pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; see also, 224.2, subd. (a)) was defective. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) concedes both errors. As to the denial of counsel at the section 366.26 hearing, DCFS contends that the error was not prejudicial. As to the defective ICWA notice, DCFS contends that the order terminating parental rights should be reversed and the matter remanded for the purpose of notifying the appropriate tribal entities. If no tribe responds that Z.M. is an Indian child, the court should reinstate the termination order. Court agree with DCFSs contentions and therefore reverse and remand with directions.

Defendant Alaren Frazier committed a series of burglaries and vehicle thefts in Stockton over the course of nine days in April of 2006. One of those burglaries transformed into a home invasion robbery as defendant confronted 89-year-old Rosemary Sanchez in her bedroom and demanded cash and credit cards. Rather than comply with defendants demands, Rosemary reached for a cigar box on her nightstand which contained a loaded .38 caliber revolver. Before Rosemary could open the box to retrieve the gun, defendant grabbed the box and ran out of the house. One of the stolen vehicles was taken a week before the incident at Rosemarys house. The other vehicle was taken two days after. Both occurred at different locations and involved different victims. The details of these and other crimes will be set out more fully below. On appeal, defendant contends that one of his convictions for receiving stolen property must be reversed because California law bars conviction for robbery and for receiving the same property that was the subject of the robbery. Court agree, and will reverse one of defendants receiving stolen property convictions. However, as Court explain more fully below, we must also remand for resentencing because the trial court was required by Penal Code section 667, subdivision (c)(6), to sentence defendant to consecutive terms of 25 years to life on at least one count of unlawful taking or driving a vehicle that was not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts as the robbery count which formed the basis of the principal term.

John F. Mounier, Jr., appeals from the trial courts denial of his special motion to strike the amended and supplemental complaint filed by plaintiff Scott D. Mathews and resulting attorney fee award for $9,500. We conclude Mounier failed to make a prima facie showing the amended and supplemental complaint was based on protected activities and failed to carry his burden to show abuse of discretion in the attorney fee award. Court also decline to review the nonappealable order overruling Mouniers demurrer.

Plaintiff Julieanne Shull sued defendants County of Sacramento (the county) and Sacramento County Sheriff Deputies Jennifer Page and Rebecca Purdy, among others, for injures Shull suffered while detained at the Sacramento County Jail. At trial, she prevailed only on her causes of action alleging battery and negligence against Purdy. She now brings this judgment roll appeal challenging a jury instruction, the attorney fee award, and the costs award. Rejecting Shulls contentions, mostly on the grounds the record is insufficient to prove prejudicial error or abuse of discretion, Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Eric Daniel Hammon filed a complaint against defendant Harold L. Woolery to quiet title and obtain injunctive relief in a dispute over the parties adjoining property.[1] In connection with the complaint, Hammon filed an ex parte request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction. The trial court issued the TRO and an order to show cause. Woolery appeals the issuance of the TRO. He contends that, under the standard for reviewing a preliminary injunction, the evidence and law do not support the trial courts action. Contrary to Woolerys position, however, Court do not apply the standard for reviewing a preliminary injunction when Court are reviewing a TRO. Applying the correct standard, Court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

As a result of conduct committed on June 6, 2006, a jury convicted defendant Jason Matthew Denny of the felony of making a criminal threat and two misdemeanors, possessing a concealed firearm in a vehicle and carrying a loaded firearm within city limits. (Pen. Code, 422, 12025, subd. (a)(1), 12031, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court granted probation and defendant timely filed this appeal.
Defendant claims no substantial evidence supports the felony verdict and the trial court improperly excluded several items of evidence that would have tended to exculpate him. Court disagree with each of his contentions and affirm.

Crystal G. seeks writ review of orders terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing regarding her daughters, N.G. and S.G. (Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) She contends the court erred by finding she was provided with reasonable reunification services. Court deny the petition.

A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a))[1]and carrying a concealed weapon ( 12020, subd. (a)(4)) In bifurcated proceedings, defendant admitted suffering four prison priors ( 667.5, subd. (b)), a serious felony prior ( 667, subd. (a)) and a strike prior ( 667, subds.(c) & (e)). The sentencing court dismissed all but the serious prior and sentenced defendant to 8 years and 8 months in prison. Defendant appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment, while directing the trial court to amend the abstract which contains an error brought to our attention by defendant. The facts will be set forth in our discussion of the insufficiency of the evidence issue.

Defendant was charged by felony complaint filed by the San Bernardino County District Attorney with perjury by false application for aid (Pen. Code, 118, count 1) and obtaining aid by misrepresentation (Welf. & Inst. Code, 10980, subd. (c)(2), count 2). On May 9, 2008, and prior to formal sentencing, defendant, represented by new counsel, moved to withdraw her plea; the motion was denied. Thereafter, defendants request to be placed on a formal grant of probation was granted and the terms and conditions included both local jail time and restitution to the victim. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence or other matters not affecting the validity of the plea.

On September 21, 2007, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed an information charging defendant with one count of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), and also charging defendant with two special allegations filed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On May 20, 2008, defendant filed a notice of appeal in case number FSB703594, which this Court, by our order dated August 20, 2008, construed as an appeal from case number FSB701428 as well. The judgment is affirmed.

D.S. (the minor) appeals following an initial disposition order removing her from her mothers custody and placing her in the custody of the probation department, detained in juvenile hall pending identification of appropriate out of home placement. The judgment is affirmed.