CA Unpub Decisions

After appellant had waived a jury trial on a seven-count information and submitted the matter to the court on the basis of the record established in the preliminary hearing, the trial court found him guilty on all of the substantive counts charged and also found the remaining prior conviction allegations to be true. The principal count charged was first degree burglary. Appellant appeals, claiming that the structure from which he was seen taking various items was not part of a residential structure, and thus he could not properly be found guilty of first degree burglary. Court disagree and hence affirm the judgment.

Counsel appointed for appellant T.P. has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Appellant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. Court have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

Appellants City of San Mateo Personnel Board (Board) and City of San Mateo (City) seek review of the judgment entered following the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Board to set aside its decision to terminate the employment of respondent Antonio Giusto. For reasons discussed below, Court reverse the judgment.

B.H. appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders. Court conclude insufficient evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that B.H. committed a criminal trespass and reverse that finding. B.H.s appeal from the courts imposition of a probation search condition is moot.

Homer Alvin Marchbanks, Jr., appeals from convictions entered on his plea of guilty to felony commercial burglary and misdemeanor battery. He contends he was wrongfully denied presentence custody credits for a portion of his time in custody. Court dismiss the appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.1.

Frederick Glenn Allen appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on three counts of criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422 counts 1, 3, & 4) and count 7 intentional violation of a court order (Pen. Code, 273.6, subd. (a)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for four years four months. Appellant claims the trial court committed trial and sentencing errors. Court affirm the judgment.

Ricky White appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of selling or furnishing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), having suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (a)) and two prior felony convictions for which he served separate prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for eight years. Court reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions.

David Jon Raljevich appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 3 - possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and count 4 - receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)) with a court finding that he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (d)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for seven years four months. Appellant claims sentencing errors occurred. Court affirm the judgment.

Amiya Goswami appeals from a broad permanent injunction issued by the probate court restraining him from taking specified actions concerning assets of the late Alfred J. Borstein, Borsteins trust, and other related entities. Appellant raises multiple challenges to the injunction. He claims the probate court acted in excess of its jurisdiction because he was not served with the temporary restraining order or application for permanent injunction; he was not a party to the probate proceeding; respondents are no longer parties to the conservatorship case; respondent Carol Stein failed to present evidence of her rights to the disputed properties; and the injunction improperly resolved disputes concerning properties located in other states. Appellant also argues the trial court violated his constitutional rights by barring him from filing documents to protect his interests in the disputed properties. He contends the court erred in granting relief in this probate action that, in effect, quieted title to the disputed properties, and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the injunction. Court find no basis for reversal and affirm.

Noel Nicholas appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of multiple counts of possession of illegal narcotics for sale. Nicholas contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the warrant and to suppress evidence of the drugs found during the search of his residence. He also argues that the court abused its discretion in ordering a prison term instead of probation. Court affirm.

J.M. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following the finding he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211).[1] He was placed home on probation in the home of his mother, and a maximum term of confinement of five years was declared. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding he committed a robbery because he was not an aider or abettor. Additionally, he asserts the court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the order of wardship but strike the maximum term of confinement.

Appellant, J. Kel Painting & Wallcovering, Inc. (J. Kel or appellant), appeals from the denial of its petition for writ of administrative mandamus, filed in the superior court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, to review a decision of the Burbank Board of Education (Board). Appellant contends that it was under contract to paint portions of a school, and was not afforded a hearing prior to the substitution of a new painter, as required by law. Appellant also contends that it was not given proper notice of the substitution, that the evidence showed that its performance under the contract was excused, and that it was deprived of a constitutionally protected property right without due process. Upon review of the administrative record, we conclude the trial courts findings and decision are supported by substantial evidence. Thus, Court reject appellants contentions and affirm the order denying the petition.

C.R. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating Mothers parental rights to her sons, R.V. and L.H. She seeks to invalidate all prior findings and orders, contending that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the requirements of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), as well as various requirements of recently enacted California statutes governing custody proceedings involving Indian children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 224 et seq.)[1] DCFS concedes error in failing to give notice of the dependency proceedings to a particular tribe, the Northern Cheyenne. We therefore reverse the order terminating parental rights and direct DCFS to comply on remand with the notice provisions of the ICWA, as discussed herein. As to Mothers other contentions of ICWA error, we conclude that the juvenile court committed error by failing to receive the required expert testimony before terminating parental rights, but find the error to have been harmless. Court find no merit in Mothers remaining contentions of error in giving notice of the proceedings.

Appellant was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of possession for sale of cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. The jury found true the allegations that appellant had suffered three prior convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). Appellant admitted that he had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of nine years in state prison. Based upon this conviction, the court found appellant to be in violation of his probation in case number BA307512 and sentenced him to three years in state prison, to be served concurrently with the sentence in the new case.Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. In a supplemental brief, he contends that if his conviction is reversed due to the trial court's error in denying the motion to suppress, the court's finding of a probation violation should also be reversed. Court see no error, and affirm the judgment of conviction and the probation violation finding.