CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Lionel A. Pandy (defendant) contends that the trial court improperly failed to determine whether and to what extent he was entitled to custody credits for time he spent in court-ordered drug treatment programs. He also complains that a trial court minute order and his abstract of judgment incorrectly reflect the imposition of an $800 restitution fine rather than the $200 fine orally imposed by the trial court. We agree with both contentions. Court remand for recalculation of defendants custody credits and order the trial courts January 28, 2008 minute order and the abstract of judgment corrected.

On September 20, 2006 Deshawn Lydell Davis was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350) in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. LA053314. The trial court ordered probation and granted deferred entry of judgment for 24 months. The appeal is dismissed.

Father appeals adjudication and disposition orders in his daughters dependency case. Father makes no claim of error regarding the jurisdictional order as to Mother pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j),[1] and we affirm that order. We find that amending the section 300 petition to add a jurisdictional allegation pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) as to Father, without giving Father notice or an opportunity to defend, violated Fathers due process rights and should be reversed. Father claims that the dispositional order erroneously refused to give custody of his daughter to him, but substantial evidence supports that custody determination. Father also claims that the juvenile court erroneously failed to order that he receive financial assistance for housing, but Father forfeited this claim on appeal by failing to raise it before the juvenile court. Court find that the juvenile courts visitation order requiring monitored visits for Father twice per week was not an abuse of discretion. Court affirm the jurisdictional order sustaining section 300, subdivision (j) jurisdiction as to Mother, reverse the jurisdictional order sustaining section 300, subdivision (b) jurisdiction as to Father, and affirm dispositional orders regarding custody and visitation.

Respondent Gerry L. Rode's corporation, Bad to the Bone, Inc., owned and operated a motorcycle dealership. It sold four motorcycles to appellant Front Range Motorcycles, Inc. (FRM). FRM accepted delivery of the motorcycles but then refused to pay for them. Bad to the Bone sold the dealership and ceased business operations. Bad to the Bone assigned to Rode all claims arising from the sale of the dealership. Rode filed a complaint for breach of contract against FRM. FRM moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Rode lacked standing to sue because Rode's corporation was suspended at the time the assignment was made and the assignment was void ab initio. The court denied the motion finding that the assignment was not void, Rode had standing to sue, and FRM failed to timely assert the defense of lack of capacity to sue. Court affirm.

Richard Hernandez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, 187, 664)[1]with a finding he personally used and discharged a firearm in committing the offense ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (e)(1)). The jury was unable to agree on the criminal street gang enhancement allegation ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), and it was dismissed. Hernandez was sentenced to an indeterminate life term and a determinate 20-year term for the firearm-use enhancement and ordered to register as a gang member under section 186.30. On appeal, Hernandez contends he was improperly made subject to the gang registration requirement in the absence of a factual finding his attempted murder offense was gang related; the evidence was insufficient to support such a finding; and his defense counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to the imposition of the gang registration requirement. Court affirm.

A mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her two-year-old daughter, claiming that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding that her daughter, A.S., a dependent child of the juvenile court, was likely to be adopted. A maternal great-aunt had cared for A.S. for nearly two years and repeatedly stated her interest in and desire to adopt A.S. A prospective adoptive parents expression of interest in adopting a child generally indicates the minor is likely to be adopted by that prospective adoptive parent or by some other family. It also constitutes substantial evidence supporting the juvenile courts finding that A.S. is likely to be adopted. Court find no error and affirm the order terminating parental rights.

B.H. (mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]terminating her parental rights over her son, J.M. (child). Mother argues that (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition seeking the return of child to her care, and (2) the juvenile court erred in concluding that the parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(1)) did not apply. For the reasons stated below, Court affirm.

Jose Luis Allegria, III appeals from the judgment following a guilty plea to failing to register as a convicted sex offender (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)),[1]making a false financial statement ( 532a, subd. (1)), and falsely obtaining a driver's license ( 529.7). Pursuant to a written plea agreement, appellant admitted suffering two prior strike convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (c)(1) & (e)(1)); 1170.12, subds. (a)(1) & (c)(1)). The trial court struck a prior strike conviction and sentenced appellant to 32 months state prison. Appellant was ordered to pay restitution fines of $500 ( 1202.4, subd. (b); 1202.45) and awarded 435 days presentence custody credit. The judgment is affirmed.

Quinntin Denton (appellant) appeals from the order revoking probation after he previously pled no contest to possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and admitted that he had a prior enumerated narcotics conviction (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a)). During the probation violation proceedings, the trial court found that appellant had failed to appear pursuant to court order and found appellant in violation of probation. It then revoked probation and executed the five year prison term it had previously imposed and stayed. The order under review is affirmed.

An information charged defendant Deborah Lenore Bodge and codefendant Dean Everett Dana with cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11358 count one) and possession of marijuana for sale (id., 11359 count two). Defendant was also charged with possession of methamphetamine (id., 11377, subd. (a) count three). It was further alleged that a principal was armed with a firearm, to wit, a .22 caliber rifle. (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (a)(1).)
We shall reverse the trial courts ruling on the motion to unseal and to quash the search warrant and remand for further proceedings.

A modification decision.

After two jury trials, Brandon Lynell Price was found guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a)), shooting at an occupied vehicle ( 246), attempted robbery ( 211, 664) and assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true that Price had committed the murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) and that he was 16 years of age or older when he committed the offenses (Welf. & Inst. Code, 707, subd. (d)(1)). The jury specifically found not true allegations that Price had personally used or discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury during the commission of those offenses ( 12022.5, subd. (a)(1); 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d)).
Court reverse Price's sentences for his attempted robbery and assault with a firearm convictions and his section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1) enhancement attendant to the assault and remand the matter for resentencing in light of Cunningham error. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision.

Appellant C.L. (mother) is the mother of Gr.L., a boy born in November 1996, Gl.L, a girl born in August 1998, and their five siblings, two younger boys and three older boys (siblings). Mother appeals from the juvenile courts July 14, 2008, order terminating her parental rights to Gr.L. and Gl.L (children). Mother argues that the court erred when it found that the sibling relationship exception to the presumption for adoption, found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), did not apply. As discussed below, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts decision declining to apply this exception.