CA Unpub Decisions

On July 27, 2006, appellant, Ismael Sauceda, was charged in an information with first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)),[1]being a principal who intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing the death of the victim ( 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)), and a gang enhancement ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant D.S. is the alleged father of a dependent child, D.S., whom the superior court freed for adoption pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Appellants appointed appellate counsel filed a NO ISSUE STATEMENT with this court advising that no brief would be forthcoming because there was no arguable issue to raise (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order filed August 19, 2008, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief, which he has since done.
Appellant contends: the court erred at the termination hearing by not declaring him D.S.s presumed father; or in the alternative, appellants attorney was ineffective in his effort to elevate appellants paternity status from the childs alleged father to his presumed father. Having reviewed the appellate record as summarized below, we conclude appellants contentions do not amount to claims that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994). Court affirm.

V.F. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26 ) to her child R.F.[1] Appellants appointed appellate counsel filed a NO ISSUE STATEMENT on October 14, 2008, advising there were no issues that could be raised and therefore no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). Court extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief, which she has since done.
In her letter brief, appellant writes about the father of her child, challenges the accuracy of information contained in early social worker reports, and finally contends the trial court rejected and ignored her testimony in opposition to terminating her parental rights. Having reviewed the appellate record as summarized below, we conclude appellants letter brief does not contain an arguable claim that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994). Court affirm.

Dion Davis (appellant) appeals his conviction by jury trial of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1](count 1), grand theft of the person ( 487, subd. (c)) (count 2), and petty theft with a prior conviction ( 666, 484, subd. (a)) (count 3). In a bifurcated court trial, the court found true three prior strike allegations ( 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (d)), and four prior prison term allegations ( 667.5, subd. (b)).[2] Appellant contends his robbery and grand theft convictions are based on a legally insufficient theory, and his counsel was ineffective in failing to object thereto. He also contends the court erroneously failed to give a unanimity instruction, improperly instructed on reasonable doubt and committed sentencing error. The parties agree appellants convictions on grand theft and petty theft with a prior must be reversed because they are necessarily included offenses of appellants robbery conviction. Court concur and reverse counts 2 and 3. Court otherwise affirm.

A jury found that appellant Michael James Daniela convicted felonpresented a substantial danger of harm to others as a result of a severe mental disorder requiring treatment. (Pen. Code, 2970.) As a result of this finding, he was involuntarily committed for one year to Atascadero State Hospital as a mentally disordered offender (MDO), extending a placement imposed as a condition of his parole from state prison. Daniel appeals, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend his MDO commitment after his scheduled parole release date. Court affirm the commitment order.

Appellant Terrance Willie Wilson appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).)[1] The jury found true the allegations that appellant committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that he personally used and discharged a firearm to commit the murder ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d).) Appellant admitted that he had suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and that he served one prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life, doubled to 50 years to life for murder, plus 25 years for the firearm enhancement, plus 10 years for the gang enhancement, resulting in a total term of 85 years to life. The trial court struck the prison term prior. Court affirm with modifications.

Angelina Nillo appeals from the judgment of dissolution and denial of her request for nullification of her marriage to Bonifacio A. Nillo. She contends the trial court erred in finding Bonifacios alleged pedophilia[2]was insufficient to support an annulment and in finding his behavior was open and notorious such that her inaction constituted a waiver or acquiescence. She further contends the court erred in precluding expert testimony on the persistence and incurable nature of pedophilia. Court reject these contentions and affirm.

Appellants Victor Hernandez and Larry Hernandez were convicted in a jury trial of first degree murder of Gregory Acuna.[1] The jury further found allegations pursuant to Penal Code sections 12022.5, subdivision (a), 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1), 12022, subdivision (a)(1) and 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A) true as to appellant Victor Hernandez.[2] The jury also found allegations pursuant to sections 12022, subdivision (a)(1) and 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A) true as to appellant Larry Hernandez. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the special circumstance allegation that Larry Hernandez had sustained a prior conviction of first degree murder within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(2). Appellant Larry Hernandez was sentenced to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus one year. Appellant Victor Hernandez was sentenced to a term of 38 years to life.
We find that all of Larry Hernandezs claims lack merit with the exception of his contention that the trial court erred in its response to the jury question relating to aider and abettor liability. Court conclude that error requires reversal or reduction of his first degree murder conviction to second degree murder. As to appellant Victor Hernandez, we find that all of his claims lack merit with the exception of the claim that the trial court erred in imposing a three year enhancement to his sentence. Court modify his sentence and otherwise affirm.

Greenhouse International, LLC (Greenhouse) filed an action against Moulton Logistics Management, Inc. (Moulton) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Moulton filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court for an order compelling Greenhouse to arbitrate its claims. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that Greenhouses claims were not covered by the parties arbitration agreement. Court reverse the trial courts order.

A mother appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her three children. Her sole contention on appeal is that notice given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. section 1901 et seq., was inadequate. Court agree the service to one tribe was technically deficient, but find the error was harmless. Accordingly, Court affirm.

In this mandate proceeding, Jenny Wang challenges an order granting a motion to compel arbitration of her legal malpractice action against her former attorney and his law firm. Court conclude that the language of the arbitration clause in the retainer agreement petitioner signed when she retained the defendants is not broad enough to encompass a claim for legal malpractice. Accordingly, Court grant the petition for writ of mandate.

Ralph W. Dunlap (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated plea of no contest to having committed a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) As agreed, the trial court sentenced him to an eight year state prison term.
After examination of the record, appellate counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues are raised. The judgment is affirmed.

In plaintiff Daniel E. Gonzalezs view of the world he has been victimized by employers, other dentists, patients, parents of patients, the Board of Dental Examiners, his insurance carrier, and, in this legal malpractice action, his lawyers. He has been involved in litigation with all of them and lost, most recently when the trial court granted his lawyers motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appears to believe that the sheer weight of the record he amasses will create triable issues. Not so.
This case is quite simple. In the underlying malpractice claim, he contends Beyer, Pongratz & Rosen; Etan Rosen; and Erik Child failed to competently represent him in four different actions. As the trial court found, however, the statute of limitations had run in two of the cases, and in the other two, plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue that, but for his lawyers negligence, he would have obtained a more favorable result. Court agree with the trial court and affirm.

The minor, O.P., appeals from the findings made at the contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearings that he committed a felony burglary and that five prior offenses had been sustained against him. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Court shall affirm.