CA Unpub Decisions

A father and a minor child appeal a juvenile courts orders in a dependency proceeding denying a request to continue the matter to the next year so that an amended statute could take effect, and finding that the exception in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D)[1] did not apply. We find that the juvenile courts denial of the request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, and that the juvenile court correctly applied the statute in effect at the time of the section 366.26 hearing. We conclude that no exceptional circumstances caused the relative with whom the minor child was living to be unable or unwilling to adopt that child, and therefore the juvenile court correctly found that section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D) did not apply. Court affirm the order terminating parental rights.

Linda F., former foster mother of D.R., appeals from the juvenile courts order summarily denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking return of the minor to her custody. Because appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances, the juvenile court properly denied her petition without a hearing. Court affirm.

J.J. appeals orders of the juvenile court denying a modification petition, declaring that her daughter M. is adoptable, and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388, 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Court affirm.

Norman Mayfield appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, count 1 (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), and possession of a smoking device, count 2 (Health & Saf. Code, 11364, subd. (a)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on formal probation for a period of three years under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36.
The judgment is affirmed.

After suffering eight prior convictions of violent or serious felonies, defendant and appellant Christopher Hines (defendant) was convicted of robbery and burglary. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the maximum sentence in alleged retaliation for defendants exercise of his constitutional right to a jury trial. Defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike his prior felony convictions. Court hold that the record does not support defendants claim that he was sentenced in retaliation for exercising his right to a jury trial and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion to strike his prior felony convictions. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Shirlene Howard waived her right to a jury trial and was convicted by the court of assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted appellant probation on terms including service of 45 days in jail. Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.). The judgment is affirmed.

Y.P. (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order finding jurisdiction over four of her daughters under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). She contends there was insufficient evidence that her daughters were at substantial risk of harm due to her substance abuse problem. Court agree and reverse.

Defendants, American Apparel, Inc., Dov Charney, and Martin Bailey, appeal from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration under a settlement agreement. Defendants seek to arbitrate two issues. First, defendants seek to arbitrate the issue of whether plaintiff, Nancy Nelson, and her attorneys breached the settlement agreement by failing to appear in San Francisco at an arbitration with foreordained facts and a predetermined award which would be followed by the issuance of a misleading press release. Second, defendants seek to compel arbitration of whether plaintiff or her attorneys breached the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement. We conclude the language in the arbitration clauses in the settlement agreement required the petition to compel arbitration of these two disputes be granted. Court emphasize defendants are not seeking to compel arbitration of the questionable arbitration with foreordained facts and a predetermined award which would be followed by the issuance of a misleading press release.

A jury convicted Roy Evans of possessing cocaine base, as a necessarily included offense of the charge of possessing cocaine base for sale. The jury acquitted appellant of possessing marijuana. Appellant admitted two strike priors and a prior prison term within the scope of Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b). The court sentenced him to seven years in prison, consisting of double the high term, plus one year under section 667.5, subd. (b). The judgment is affirmed.

Rachel R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) She contends that because she was a minor at the inception of the proceedings, the juvenile court erred in not appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) for her at that time. While failure to appoint a GAL was error, Court find the error was harmless and affirm.

Jeff Paul Darr appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, his guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, all other allegations were stricken and appellant was sentenced to the low term of 16 months doubled to 32 months by reason of the Three Strikes law. The judgment is affirmed.

Julio C. Lucas (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to carrying a concealed firearm on his person (Pen. Code, 12025, subd. (a)(2)),[1]and he admitted the gang allegation ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) after the trial court denied his motion to suppress illegally-seized evidence ( 1538.5). At sentencing, the trial court granted appellant probation on condition, inter alia, that he serve 365 days in the county jail, with presentence credit of 252 days. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner D.P. seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating her reunification services with her son, T.P., and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l);[1]Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Court deny the petition.

Shaylene Lorraine Walker appeals a judgment of conviction entered after she pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of possession of drugs for sale, and two counts of possession of drugs. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, 11350, subd. (a).) We appointed counsel to represent her in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) On September 24, 2008, we advised Walker that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished to raise on appeal. We received a response from her contending that the trial court improperly denied a motion to suppress evidence raised by a codefendant in which she joined, and that her four-year prison term is excessive. She also requests to withdraw her plea and proceed to trial. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Walker's contentions.