CA Unpub Decisions

D. A. (appellant), the natural father of T. A. (the minor), appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying appellants request for the appointment of counsel and for paternity testing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 395.) Appellant makes several contentions of alleged prejudicial errors in the proceedings. For the reasons that follow, Court affirm.

A jury convicted Keith Gilbert of unlawfully driving a stolen vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a), count 1) and receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d, count 2.) In bifurcated proceedings, Gilbert admitted to two prior prison convictions for burglary ( 459; 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced him to six years in prison. Gilbert contends the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to argue to the jury that Gilbert did not call a certain witness to testify at trial. Court affirm.

Gerardo R. appeals from an order terminating his reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e). Because Court conclude that the court properly ordered that Gerardo not be provided services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6), and that the court's order pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e) is therefore superfluous, Court dismiss the appeal.

Jay W. appeals the findings and orders entered at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 360, subdivision (d) and 361, subdivision (c). Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his custody of a child or his status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) Court therefore deny his requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Jay W.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

Barbara C. appeals the findings and orders entered at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 360, subdivision (d) and 361, subdivision (c). Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
Barbara C.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

A jury found defendant guilty of sale of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had suffered one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), one prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)), and two prior drug-related convictions (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a)). Following the denial of his motion to strike his prior conviction, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 15 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it failed to consider his statements at sentencing that he was in custody at the time of the offense was committed as a new trial motion, and failed to either grant a new trial or a hearing to determine if he was in fact in custody as he claimed. For the reasons explained below, we reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Then 17-year-old Minor was found guilty of robbery (Pen. Code, 211). Minor was thereafter declared a ward of the court and placed on probation. On appeal, Minor contends (1) the juvenile court prejudicially erred in failing to consider that the victims fear was not caused by Minors actions, but instead by prior, unrelated events; and (2) the juvenile court erred in preventing defense counsel from cross examining the detective about the occurrence of racial incidents at the high school the victim attended. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant Eric Pineda of carjacking (Pen. Code,[1] 215, subd. (a); count 1), robbery ( 211, count 2), assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2), count 3), and unlawful taking of a vehicle ( 10851, subd. (a), count 4). With respect to counts 1, 2, and 4, the jury found true allegations appellant personally used a firearm in the commission of the crimes ( 12022.53, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a)). With respect to all counts, the jury found true allegations that appellant committed the crimes for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found appellant had one prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for a total of 30 years. On appeal, appellant contends: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) insufficient evidence supports the gang enhancements. Court reject appellants contentions and affirm the judgment.

Six-year-old G.S. came home from school to find his mother dead on the floor. The whereabouts of his father, James J., the appellant, were unknown. G.S. was adjudged a dependent child. Father was located after a diligent search; he then sought custody. The court ordered father to participate in services but denied him his request to have custody of G.S. Father appeals, claiming the evidence was not sufficient to support the courts finding that placing G.S. with father would be detrimental. Court affirm.

On April 27, 2006, appellant, Robert Angelo, took his nine-month-old daughter to Mercy Medical Community Campus Hospital. Afterwards, the hospital contacted the Merced Police Department to report that an extremely malnourished infant had been admitted to the hospital. Officer Ryan Rasmussen was dispatched to the hospital and observed that the infant was extremely malnourished, she was not responsive, and her eyes would just roll back in her head. Rasmussen contacted the babys mother, Andrea Angelo,[1]and she told him her daughter had problems with constipation and began to lose weight four months earlier. She noticed that her daughter started getting sick a month earlier. Andrea also stated that her daughter lived with her and Angelo. Rasmussen took Andrea into custody and at that time she spontaneously stated, I cant believe I let my daughter get this way. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted Feliciano Cadena of two counts of attempted first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 664; all further unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code), unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)), and active participation in a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found to be true allegations that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury on one attempted murder count and, on the other, that defendant personally discharged a firearm. ( 12022.53, subds. (c) & (d).) The jury rejected allegations that defendant committed the attempted murders and firearm possession for the benefit of a criminal street gang. ( 186.22, subd. (b).) After the trial court found in a bifurcated proceeding that defendant had served a prior prison term and suffered a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subds. (b) & (e)(1)), the trial court sentenced defendant to 73 years to life in prison.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in rejecting his pretrial motion to sever the active gang participation count for a separate trial and to bifurcate the gang enhancements from their underlying charges, i.e., the attempted murder and firearm possession counts. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurys conclusion he was the individual who attempted to shoot the victims. He further argues the trial court erred in (1) allowing the prosecutions gang expert witness to rely on letters he purportedly wrote to his brother from prison, (2) rejecting a pinpoint jury instruction on his claim another person was the shooter, and (3) imposing a court security fee of $80 $20 for each of the four counts on which he was convicted. As we explain below, defendants claims furnish no basis for reversal, and we therefore affirm the judgment.

Candice and Paul Collins appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Jimmie McGee in a lawsuit arising from McGees 2004 sale of his waterfront home in Huntington Beach to plaintiffs. At trial, plaintiffs claimed defendant breached a mandatory disclosure obligation in the sales contract by failing to disclose one or more of the following facts: [] (1) there were pre-existing water intrusion problems; [] (2) there was remodeling work done without necessary permits; and [] (3) the propertys boat dock cannot accommodate a 90 foot boat. In addition to breach of contract, plaintiffs alleged the same disclosure omissions as the basis for claims of negligence, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation.
On appeal, plaintiffs sole challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurys finding they suffered no harm. Plaintiffs contend their evidence was so compelling that the jury was required to enter a finding in their favor concerning damages. But the applicable standard of review, under which we may not second guess the jurys resolution of credibility issues or conflicting factual matters, stands as an insurmountable roadblock to plaintiffs challenge. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Colleen Duff‑Fraker and Dan Fraker (hereafter collectively the Frakers unless the context indicates otherwise) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike a defamation complaint filed against them by their former physician, Frederick W. Dieterich.[1] After they settled their medical malpractice/wrongful birth action against Dieterich, the Frakers were interviewed for an article that appeared in People Magazine, and Dieterich sued them for defamation, misrepresentation, and breach of contract. They contend their special motion to strike should have been granted because Dieterichs action arose out of protected activity and he failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing. Court agree and reverse the order and remand with directions to grant the special motion to strike.

Webcor Construction LP (Webcor) appeals from an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction. Webcor sought to enjoin two former employees and the business entities with which they were then associated from using or disclosing trade secrets allegedly misappropriated from Webcor. Finding no abuse of discretion, Court affirm the order.