CA Unpub Decisions

On August 2, 2007, the district attorney filed a Penal Code section 602 petition alleging 17-year-old D.R. had falsely identified himself to a police officer and committed petty theft. D.R. denied all counts at the August 3 detention hearing in Department 8 before Judge Bruce-Lyle. He admitted the false identification count at the August 14 readiness hearing before Judge Bruce-Lyle, and the judge found a factual basis for the admission, sustained the petition, and dismissed the petty theft count. At the August 28 disposition hearing, Judge Bruce-Lyle imposed conditions of probation on D.R. and ordered him to return for a review hearing the following year at 8 a.m. on August 27, 2008, in Department 8.

Defendant Balwinder Singh Tung (Tung) appeals from the trial courts orders (1) appointing a receiver to sell real property he owned as tenant in common with his wife to satisfy a money judgment entered against him in a civil lawsuit, and (2) approving a stipulation between the receiver and Tungs wife to sell his interest in the property to his wifes parents. Tung raises numerous assertions of error, the primary one being that the property was subject to a homestead exemption. As Court shall explain, Court will affirm.

On September 18, 2007, the prosecutor filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging appellant, R.M., feloniously possessed a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(1), count one) and possessed a switch blade longer than two inches in the drivers area of a vehicle, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 653k, count two). On November 14, 2007, R.M. filed a motion to suppress evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing on November 26, 2007, the juvenile court denied the motion.

It was alleged in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) filed January 16, 2008, that appellant M.B., a minor, committed three felony offenses, viz., carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a), count 1), kidnapping (Pen. Code, 207, subd. (a), count 2) and second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c), count 3), and that in committing each offense, he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a)). At the time set for the jurisdiction hearing on February 7, 2008, appellant admitted count 3 and the court dismissed the remaining counts and all enhancement allegations. At the disposition hearing on February 25, 2008, the juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court; found that the instant offense was one listed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b); ordered appellant committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice; and declared appellants maximum period of physical confinement to be five years.

A.G. (father) appeals the juvenile courts order requiring him to attend a parenting class, submit to random drug testing and complete a second substance abuse assessment as part of the reunification plan for his 13- and 11-year-old daughters (the girls). Father claims the juvenile court lacked discretion to order these services as a part of his reunification plan because there is no evidence of his inability to adequately protect, provide for, or parent the girls and the assessor who conducted a substance abuse assessment determined he did not need treatment. As Court shall explain, Court find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering these services and therefore affirm the order.

M.A. (father) appeals from the juvenile courts dispositional order declaring his then 13-year-old daughter A. and 16-year-old son J. (collectively the children) dependents, temporarily removing them from his physical custody and ordering reunification services.[1] Father challenges only the removal order, asserting it was not supported by evidence that removal was necessary to avoid a substantial danger to the childrens physical health or emotional well-being (Welf. & Inst. Code, 361, subd. (c)(1))[2]and there were alternatives available short of removal. Court disagree and will affirm the order.

In In re Marriage of Loh (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 325, 327 (Loh), this court held that an income determination cannot be plucked from thin air. In that case, Court also pointed out that income tax returns are presumptively correct determinants of income. (Id. at pp. 332-333.).

Carol M. appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights to her now 5-year-old daughter, K.H. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26; all statutory references are to this code.) She contends the court erred in finding the benefit exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Charles Dwayne Airy was convicted following a jury trial of three counts of selling or offering to sell cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant requests this court independently review the police personnel records of the two officers involved in the undercover drug transactions he was convicted of. In addition, defendant asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel for his attorneys failure to introduce potentially exculpatory evidence during his trial.

Defendant Jose Baltazar Ortiz shot Jeana Jolivette five times, wrapped her in a carpet and set it on fire. He then disposed of her burned remains in a rural dumpsite.[1] In June 2002, defendant was convicted by jury of the first degree murder (Pen. Code 187, subd. (a)). The special allegations that he had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused Jolivettes death and personally used a firearm were found to be true. (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.5, subd. (a).) Defendant was sentenced to 25 to life for the murder and 25 to life on the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement, to be served consecutively. The other enhancement was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Defendant was also ordered to pay a restitution fund fine of $10,000 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). An additional restitution fine in the same amount was imposed but suspended unless the defendants parole was revoked pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. The court also imposed additional restitution in the amount of $15, 307.57 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f). This court affirmed the judgment in People v. Ortiz (Jan. 30, 2004, H024675) [nonpub.opn.]. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Simon Peter Smith broke into his employers store room and stole money and items from a safe. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to one count felony grand theft by an employee (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (b)(3)), one misdemeanor count possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364), and one misdemeanor count possession of less than one ounce of mariguana. (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b).) Defendant also admitted one strike prior and three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) In exchange for his plea, the court sentenced defendant to 32 months in prison and granted him 974 days credit. The court also imposed 30 days to be served concurrently for each misdemeanor. His sentence was deemed served and he was released on parole. The court reserved the issue of restitution until a restitution hearing could be held. On September 21, 2007, the trial court held a restitution hearing and ordered that appellant pay restitution in the amount of $6,180. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution order. The judgment is affirmed.

While incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, defendant Michael Salcido was found in possession of a prison issued razor blade wrapped in paper and scotch tape with part of the blade exposed. The blade was on an upper shelf in his cell with some papers belonging to him. Defendant alleged that he used the blade to cut sheets into strips for a pull-up bar for working out. Defendant admitted that the razor blade was his, acknowledged that razor blades were contraband and he was punished administratively. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Court have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.

In an action for ejectment from real property, the defendant (Jamerson) filed a cross-complaint to quiet title to the property in his favor. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the Plaintiffs and cross-defendants on the cross-complaint, and summary judgment on Plaintiffs Wong and Yees first cause of action for ejectment. Following a stipulated judgment, the Defendant appeals. Court affirm the summary adjudication ruling and judgment on the ground of res judicata.

Following denial of defendants motion to suppress evidence seized from his motel room during two searches, he entered a plea of no contest to nine counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)). He also admitted an allegation that he served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of six years in state prison. In this appeal defendant renews his challenge to two warrantless searches of his motel room. Court conclude that the searches were lawful despite the lack of a warrant, and affirm the judgment.