CA Unpub Decisions

A father and mother of a minor child petition for an extraordinary writ challenging a juvenile court order in a dependency case terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] hearing. We find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that returning the child to her parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to her emotional well-being. We also find that the juvenile court did not erroneously fail to order a continuation of reunification services, and that the father has not shown that reunification services were inadequate. Court deny the petition.

Defendant Stanley Golab admitted twice violating Proposition 36 probation. The trial court found him unamenable to drug treatment and sentenced him to nine years in state prison. Defendant appeals, contending: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the finding he was unamenable to treatment; (2) imposition of the upper term was based on dual use of facts and failure to take into consideration mitigating factors; and (3) the upper term violated defendants Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Court affirm the judgment.

When defendant was stopped after evading a police officer, a search of the car revealed over $12,000 in cash, a scale and almost three pounds of methamphetamine. A jury convicted defendant of possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)), and evading a police officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, 2800.2). The jury found true two quantity allegations (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.4, subd. (b)(1); Pen. Code, 1203.073, subd. (b)(2)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found defendant had two serious felony priors (Pen. Code, 1170.12). Defendant was sentenced to 53 years to life in prison. On appeal defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding a portion of a telephone conversation between defendant and his mother. He contends the omitted portion of the conversation cast a different light on the admitted portion, as defendant suggested he was framed. Defendant further contends the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to strike one of his prior convictions because both his prior convictions arose from the same course of conduct. Court find no error and affirm.

CalPrune, a California corporation (CalPrune) appeals from entry of a stipulated judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and orders after judgment denying relief in the nature of reinstatement of the settlement agreement and refusing to set an undertaking to stay the judgment during appeal under section 917.4. Finding no prejudicial error, we shall affirm the judgment and the order denying reinstatement relief. That renders the appeal from the order refusing to set an undertaking to stay the judgment moot.

Defendant Paul Richard Sanchez was found guilty of two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 211),[1]three counts of attempted robbery ( 664, 211), and one count of assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a knife during the commission of several of the offenses. The court found defendant had five prior strike convictions and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 77 years to life in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred by (1) denying his Marsden motion,[2]and (2) denying his motion to exclude field and all subsequent identifications made by two of the witnesses. Court shall affirm the judgment.

After arranging the sale of a third of a gram of marijuana to an undercover officer, defendant pled no contest to selling marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)) in exchange for an agreement that he would be placed on probation for four years and serve 150 days in county jail.
After undertaking an independent examination of the record, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing whether defendant entered a valid Cruz waiver. The parties agree that defendants waiver was invalid, and Court concur with this conclusion. Accordingly, Court vacate defendants sentence and remand the matter for resentencing.

In this pro se judgment roll appeal, appellant Idowu O. Oghogho contends the trial court erred in dismissing his employment-related action after it granted the motion to strike the complaint by respondent Teichert Construction Company Woodland District (Teichert). Oghogho has failed to show the trial court erred, and Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant, the father of the minor, appeals from the juvenile courts orders terminating parental rights and denying his request for visitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 388, 395.) On appeal, he contends the court erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for him and there was improper notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Court agree with the latter contention and shall vacate the juvenile courts order terminating parental rights and remand the matter to the juvenile court for proper compliance with ICWA.

A jury found defendant Shawn McDaniel guilty of unlawful driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and receipt of stolen property (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 13 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the discovery of new evidence that would have made a different result probable on retrial; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the trial courts finding that he had a prior strike conviction; (3) he was effectively convicted of taking and receiving stolen property in violation of the common law and Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a); and (4) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that defendant could not be convicted both of stealing and receiving the same stolen property and on the difference between vehicle theft and posttheft driving of a stolen vehicle. Court affirm in part and reverse in part.

On December 13, 2007, defendant Lanier Pierre Turner was stopped for driving a vehicle without license plates and with a cracked windshield. Defendant admitted that he was on parole. A search of the car revealed a pipe for smoking methamphetamine and a baggie with 0.56 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12 [for a 1991 Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a) conviction]), in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence of the low term of 16 months, doubled for the strike prior. The court granted the prosecutors motion to dismiss the remaining count and allegations in the interest of justice. The court sentenced defendant to state prison accordingly.

A jury convicted Michael Enrico Person of residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459/460)[1]in the first degree. In a bifurcated proceeding, Person admitted he was on bail status at the time of the burglary ( 12022.1, subd. (b)), and he had a prison prior, several serious felony and strike priors ( 667.5, subd. (b), 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 1170.12). The court sentenced Person to an aggregate term of 20 years in prison.
Person's sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his poverty to show he committed the burglary. Court affirm the judgment.

Terrance J., a resident of Alabama, appeals a judgment declaring his minor son, Jaheim B., a dependent of the juvenile court and removing Jaheim from his custody. Terrance contends: (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, 3400 et seq.) and should have declined to exercise jurisdiction.[2] We conclude the court properly exercised its jurisdiction and accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Juan Manuel Rojas appeals his conviction for forcible rape, rape in concert and unlawful sexual intercourse involving three victims. Court agree that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for rape in concert. Court otherwise affirm the judgment and remand for resentencing.

Defendant Mariano Diaz, Jr., was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and numerous enhancements were found true. He was also convicted of two counts of assault with a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to prison for a total term of 75 years to life. He appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support the jurys findings that he premeditated and deliberated the attempted murders and the trial court erred in its imposition of sentence. He also argues that his sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, particularly because he was only 17 years old when the crimes were committed. Except to correct the base sentence ordered, as conceded by respondent, Court affirm.