CA Unpub Decisions

On the night of February 27, 2007, two undercover Los Angeles police officers in an unmarked car were parked in the parking lot of a McDonalds in order to stake-out drug sales. Raul Guevara parked his car next to theirs and they eventually saw Guevara retrieve a baggie with rock cocaine from inside his cars gas cap and give it to Mary Cox. The officers then saw Cox run across the street and return with cash in hand. The officers approached Guevaras car and saw that he had $40 cash in his hand and the baggie on his lap. A search located another $170 and more cocaine base, totaling 1.69 grams. No paraphernalia used to ingest drugs was found. Guevara was charged with one count of possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and one count of transporting cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that Guevara was either out on bail or his own recognizance at the time. (Pen. Code, 12022.1.)

The juvenile court found jurisdiction over J.R., based in part on allegations that her father, C.R., had a history of spousal and child abuse involving J.R.s mother and older half brother. Father appeals from the juvenile courts order and contends that the courts jurisdictional findings involving him were not supported by sufficient evidence. Court reverse the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings as to father and otherwise affirm.

Here the trial court erred in imposing both a five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction under (Pen. Code, 667, subdivision (a)(1),[1]and a one-year enhancement for a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b), where the enhancements were imposed for the same prior felony conviction. Court strike one of the three enhancements the trial court imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b), thus reducing the defendant's prison term by one year. In all other respects we affirm.

Bruce Westin appeals from an order after judgment imposing restitution pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 in the amount of $94,547.48. Previously he was convicted of committing vandalism causing damage over $400 (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)) and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. He contends the restitution order imposed by the trial court must be reversed as the terms of the order amount to an abuse of discretion and rest upon a demonstrable error in law. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the order.

In the second set of appeals in this case, plaintiffs and appellants Marc Lair, Equitable Medical Properties, LLC and The Equitable Group, Inc. appeal from a judgment entered after this court's remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment on the jury's special verdict awarding Lair $650,000 in quantum meruit damages against defendant Ronald Vinci, and awarding Vinci money damages on his causes of action for breach of an option agreement and two notes secured by specified property (Lair v. Vinci (Dec. 5, 2005, D043433) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court's ensuing judgment states that "Lair shall have and recover . . . judgment in the sum of $650,000" against Vinci. The judgment further awards Vinci possession of a Beechcraft Baron airplane. The court found no party prevailed in the action for purposes of attorney fees and costs. Court conclude the court erred in determining Vinci was not a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 with respect to his breach of contract cause of action on the Lancair note, and reverse that portion of the judgment awarding attorney fees and costs as to that cause of action with directions stated below. Otherwise, Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Jose Luis Beaver of one count of residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460) and one count of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Beaver to 30 years to life in state prison. Beaver appeals, contending that the trial court erred by: (i) permitting the prosecutor to impeach his testimony with seven 18 year old burglary convictions; (ii) failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of trespassing; and (iii) relying on a flawed definition of "reasonable doubt" in instructing the jury. Court find Beaver's contentions to be without merit and affirm.

Plaintiff Lindy O'Leary appeals a judgment by special verdict in favor of defendants Ezekiel Awbrey, Mervin Hee and Joseph Baima on her complaint for violation of her federal civil rights (42 U.S.C. 1983). O'Leary contends the superior court erred by not granting her a new trial based on jury misconduct and defense counsel's cross-examination of an expert witness. Further, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict in favor of Baima. Court affirm the judgment.

This marital dissolution case involves an in propria persona appellant husband of a short term marriage who appeals from an order entered July 23, 2007, denying his petition for child custody and visitation rights with a minor stepchild under Family Code section 3101, subdivision (a). At the time of his petition, Shawn Woodall, was an indigent prisoner in San Diego County Jail awaiting trial on criminal charges. Because his respondent wife, Janice Teeter, has filed no responsive pleadings, Court determine the appeal based on the record provided and Woodall's opening and supplemental briefs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)
Woodall essentially contends he should not be held to the same stringent standard as an attorney in his pro per pleadings, his due process and equal protection rights to access the court were obstructed by government officials, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to enter an order to produce him in court or to appoint counsel to represent him in this matter, his due process right to cross examine witnesses against him was violated by the trial court's failure to order him produced for the hearing in this matter, and the trial court erred by construing his motion for visitation as a motion for paternity. Court affirm.

Dwayne B. appeals the findings and orders entered at postpermanency planning review hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3. 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 his Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) The appeal is dismissed.

Tiffany G. 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. Tiffany G.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

Russell H. appeals the findings and orders entered at a review hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 supplemental petition. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
Russell H.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

Melissa C. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, including the denial of her section 388 petition. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant Joseph Christopher Segade appeals from a judgment convicting him of multiple sex crimes against two child victims. The jury found defendant guilty of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon Jane Doe, a child under 14 years of age (count 1). The jury also found defendant guilty of the following eight sex crimes involving a second victim, John Doe: four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under 14 years of age (counts 2, 3, 4, and 5); two counts of forcible sodomy (counts 6 and 8); and two counts of oral copulation on a child under 18 years of age (counts 15 and 16). For the reasons provided below, Court reject defendants arguments and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Alonzo Mata repeatedly had vaginal, anal, and oral sex with his niece, starting on her eighth birthday and continuing for at least a year. As a result, he was convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a child (Pen. Code, 269, subd. (a)(3)), oral copulation on a child (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (c)(1)), and continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a)) and sentenced to a total of 23 years to life.
Court reject defendants contentions. In the course of our review, however, Court have identified one minor error, which Court can correct by modifying the judgment. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment as so modified.