CA Unpub Decisions

T.C. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating parental rights to her daughter, R.C. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.)[1] She contends the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the parental benefit exception to termination of parental rights. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Court find no error and affirm the order.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of making criminal threats in violation of Penal Code section 422 and the trial court placed him on formal probation. Following the revocation of his probation, appellant was sentenced to six years and four months in state prison. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, and in imposing a restitution fine. Court modify the judgment to strike the restitution fine and affirm.

Appellant, mother of the minors J. V. (six years old) and L. V. (eight years old), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the courts finding that the minors were adoptable. Court affirm.

Defendant Glen Dale Lemons, Jr., was a passenger in the front seat of a vehicle driven by his friend, Trent G., whose 10 year old daughter, T.G., was sitting in the back seat by her six-year-old sister. Defendant held his cell phone over his shoulder and showed to T.G. pictures of defendants penis and a text message stating he wanted to masturbate. When T.G. later walked by defendant in the living room of her fathers home, defendant was looking at a picture of a mans penis on a laptop computer. The appeal is dismissed.

At around 12:30 a.m., 63-year-old Dennis Seefeldt heard a knock on the door of his Carmichael apartment. Seeing nothing through the peephole, he opened the door a few inches and found two guns pointed at him. Two men, one armed with a shotgun and the other armed with a .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun, pushed their way into the apartment, forced Seefeldt to the floor, and bound his hands behind his back. The robbers demanded money, drugs, and guns as they ransacked the apartment and searched through Seefeldts pockets. They took two handguns, Seefeldts coin collection, and three cell phones. Seefeldt identified defendant as the robber wielding the shotgun. The judgment is affirmed.

Reynaldo C., Jr. and Karen B., parents of the eight minors, appeal from orders of the juvenile court denying Reynaldo C.s petition for modification and terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 388, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to this code].) Appellants contend substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding of adoptability as to Al. C. and Ar. C. and that the exception to termination of parental rights found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(iii), i.e., the minor is in a residential treatment facility and is not adoptable, should have applied to Al. C. Reynaldo C. also argues the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for modification. Court affirm.

David Disney reported to the Shasta County Sheriffs Department that he witnessed a tenant he was evicting, defendant Mark Cassiero, load Disneys refrigerator into a pickup and drive away. Disney said that the refrigerator was valued at $400 and later produced a receipt he claimed established his ownership of it. Defendant appeals, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Robert Edward Bevens was convicted in July 2004 of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) He was granted probation on the condition, among others, that he serve 180 days in county jail, and was required to register as a sex offender.
In August 2007, one month after he successfully completed probation, police officers went to defendants home to verify his compliance with the sex offender registration requirement. Defendant, who was home with his four year old son, was under the influence of methamphetamine, which he admitted having just smoked. He was also in possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and various drug paraphernalia. Officers found three rifles, a loaded handgun, and boxes of ammunition in an open bedroom closet to which defendant admitted having access. The judgment is affirmed.

Ellen Evans and Christina Turpela (Respondents) filed a motion to dismiss Haubert's appeal in this court for lack of jurisdiction, and also moved for sanctions against Haubert for pursuing another frivolous appeal. Court grant Respondents' motion, and dismiss Haubert's appeal. We also award sanctions in a total amount of $15,460 to compensate Respondents and this court for having to respond to and process Haubert's frivolous appeal. Upon return of the remittitur, the Clerk of the Court of Appeal is to forward a copy of this opinion to the State Bar of California, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.7, subdivision (a)(3).

The record in this case contains testimony from a medical examiner who believed appellant Salvador Mendoza Gonzalez strangled his girlfriend Maria Veloz for one or two minutes and that although the strangling itself would have killed Veloz, when appellant was finished strangling Veloz, appellant threw Veloz against a wall with such force that he inflicted what would have been a second fatal injury. The record also contains testimony from appellant in which he admitted he killed Veloz. The jury found him guilty of first degree murder. On appeal appellant argues the prosecution failed to show the killing was premeditated and deliberate. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Marc Lair appeals from a supplemental postjudgment order in execution of a judgment for property (Code Civ. Proc., 714.020, subds. (b), (c))[1] determining the value of certain personal property (a navigation/communication system or GPS) to be $9,000 and awarding that amount to defendant Ronald Vinci. Lair contends (1) the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting oral testimony from Vinci's witnesses at a hearing on that matter and (2) the navigation system, which had been installed in an aircraft awarded to Vinci in a judgment for possession, was not included within that judgment and cannot be subject to the supplemental order under section 714.020. Court reject these contentions and affirm the order.

Melvin Ward appeals an order involuntarily committing him for an indeterminate term to the custody of the State of California Department of Mental Health (DMH) issued after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the amended Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq. (Act).)[1] Ward contends the order must be reversed because: (1) the Act violates his state and Federal rights to equal protection both by the requirement of an indeterminate commitment term, and its provision of different rights to those who seek judicial review of their continuing status as an SVP with the permission of the Director of Mental Health as opposed to those who do not obtain such permission; and (2) the Act violates state and federal due process guarantees because those SVPs who "seek review of their commitment without the Director's permission are required to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not sexually violent predators." Court affirm.

In this second appeal[1] in this marital dissolution action, Jeffrey S. Stauffer appeals from an August 2007 order following a review hearing wherein the court (1) determined the amount of guideline child support from May 2002 through May 2006; (2) found the marital standard of living was approximately $35,700 in net income per month; and (3) set temporary spousal support from May 2002 to January 2006, such support to be eliminated as of January 2006. Court first conclude that our holding in Stauffer I moots Jeffrey's contention with regard to the burden of proof on the high wage earner exception to guideline child support. Court also reject Jeffrey's remaining arguments and affirm the court's August order.

Penny Hyder (Penny) appeals after the court entered a default judgment in favor of her former spouse, William Hyder (William). Court affirm.