CA Unpub Decisions

Rochelle R. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she 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 [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) Court therefore deny her requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issue. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
The appeal is dismissed.

Jon Pierre Ricketts, Charles Hale, and Derrick Scott were tried jointly before separate juries. The juries found each defendant guilty of attempted murder (count 1; Pen. Code, 664, 187), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count 2; 245, subd. (b)), and discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle (count 3; 12034, subd. (c)). Ricketts was additionally charged with, and found guilty of, being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 4; 12021, subd. (a)).
Court strike the true findings that race was a substantial motivating factor with respect to count 2 and vacate the corresponding portion of the sentences, and otherwise affirm the judgment..

Defendant, a nursing assistant who worked in a group home for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities, was convicted of second degree murder. The evidence showed that she struck one of the children in her care and lacerated the childs liver, causing the childs death. On appeal, she contends that because there was substantial evidence to support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter, the courts refusal to give such an instruction was error. She also contends that the courts effort to clarify the definition of conscious disregard for human life was misleading to the extent that it deprived her of a finding by the jury of each element of second degree murder. She argues that each error, standing alone, requires reversal of her conviction, or in the alternative, that the two errors were cumulatively prejudicial. The judgment is affirmed.

Chineze Ndukwe (hereafter plaintiff) appeals a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement concerning an underlying dispute over a real property purchase. Plaintiff claims that she did not understand the terms of the settlement agreement, and was forced by her attorney to sign the document. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant and appellant DaVictor Griffith guilty of two counts of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a), counts 1 and 4) and two counts of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359, counts 2 and 3). The jury also found true the allegations that defendant had committed the offenses in counts 1 and 2 while released on bail or his own recognizance (Pen. Code, 12022.1), and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of six years in state prison.On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Guadalupe Adolf Garcia appeals after he was convicted of shoplifting offenses in two separate cases. He contends that the court in each case erred in admitting evidence of uncharged offenses (i.e., the offenses which were the subject of the other case). Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Jorge Guadalupe Gonzalez, Jr., appeals after he was convicted of unlawfully taking or driving a motor vehicle (count 1) (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), unlawfully receiving a stolen vehicle (count 2) (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)), active participation in a criminal street gang (count 3) (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a)), hit-and-run driving (count 4) (Veh. Code, 20002, subd. (a)), resisting arrest (count 5) (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of drug paraphernalia (count 6) (Health & Saf. Code, 11364). He contends the trial court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction, and that the court improperly permitted him to be found guilty of both theft of and receiving the same stolen property. Court conclude there was no error and Court affirm.

On April 26, 2006, defendant and appellant Troy Lamont Jones entered a guilty plea to one count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), a lesser included offense to the charge of transporting cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)). In exchange, the trial court dismissed two other counts of the felony complaint, and struck allegations of prior convictions and failure to remain free of custody for five years following a prison term. At a sentencing hearing on October 20, 2006, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years. On appeal, defendant contends that the upper term sentence violated his rights under the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, Court shall affirm the judgment.

This is an appeal by R.W. (hereafter mother) from the trial courts disposition on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[1]petition. Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed the petition in April 2007 with respect to mothers five children after mother was arrested for the alleged murder of an elderly woman who died in mothers home while under the care of mother and her husband, T.W. (the father of the youngest child, T.W., Jr.). Mother does not dispute the facts giving rise to the dependency and therefore we will not recount those circumstances other than to note that DPSS received a referral on the children after the elderly womans death. During the investigation of that referral DPSS found the home in which the children lived with mother to be in filthy condition. In addition, the oldest child, S., had a black eye and red strap marks across her back, all reportedly inflicted by mother. Court will affirm the disposition.

In September 2004, defendant pled guilty to unlawfully manufacturing, distributing, or selling false government documents in violation of Penal Code section 113. In return, defendant was placed on three years of formal probation on various terms and conditions. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in determining whether defendant should be reinstated on probation; (2) the trial court failed to recognize and exercise its discretion under People v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050 (Johnson waiver) to reinstate probation with a waiver of custody credits; and (3) in the alternative, the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to reinstate him on probation. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Dana L. Webb (wife) filed three notices of appeal on November 15, 2007, seeking reversal and extinguishment of minute orders of the family law court: (1) dated July 18, 2007, concerning child support/money issues; (2) dated August 20, 2007, concerning an attorney fees award; and (3) dated September 17, 2007, relating to property settlement. For the reasons stated, the orders appealed from are affirmed.

Plaintiff Gerald Hanson appeals from a judgment of dismissal of his attorney malpractice action against defendants James DeAguilera and James DeAguilera, a Professional Corporation, for failure to post security under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (c). Although Hanson concedes the trial court properly found him to be a vexatious litigant, he contends the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount of security at $100,000.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant and appellant Ernesto Jimenez appeals after he was convicted of burglary, receiving stolen property, possession of burglary tools, and possession of marijuana. His appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no specific issues on appeal. Defendant has been given the opportunity personally to file a supplemental brief suggesting any issues he wishes to argue; no supplemental brief has been filed. Court have undertaken the required examination of the entire record and discern no arguable issues. Court therefore affirm.

A.S. (hereafter mother) appeals from the trial courts order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]terminating her parental rights to four of her five children.[2] Mother contends that the orders must be reversed as to all four children because the trial court did not comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; hereafter ICWA), and with respect to the three oldest children, the evidence does not support the trial courts finding that they are adoptable. Court conclude, as we explain below, that any error with regard to the notice required by ICWA was harmless, and substantial evidence supports the trial courts adoptability finding. Therefore, Court will affirm the order.