CA Unpub Decisions

G.P., a minor, appeals from the juvenile courts orders sustaining certain allegations of a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and adjudging him a ward of the court. He maintains that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found in a search of his residence. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Appellant Christopher Gonzalez was convicted of first degree murder and firearms discharge allegations. He contends: (1) The warrantless seizure of his car violated the Fourth Amendment. (2) Exclusion of all African-American jurors violated his right to a jury drawn from the community. (3) The trial court inappropriately limited cross-examination of the police gang expert. (4) His right to due process was violated because the photo lineup (six pack) was unduly suggestive. Court find no error and affirm.

Jack Kromberg appeals from an order awarding one-half a mobile home and mobile home lease to respondent Therese Kromberg as community property. He contends the trial court erred in valuing the mobile home and finding the ground lease to be community property. Court affirm.

Under the terms of a 1995 judgment of dissolution incorporating the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA), appellant Bruce Bullock was ordered to pay spousal support to respondent Cheryl Bullock pursuant to an agreed schedule. Bruce appeals the orders of the trial court denying his motion to terminate spousal support and increasing support from $3,500 to $5,200 per month. Court affirm.

A mother appeals from the juvenile courts adjudication and dispositional orders in a dependency proceeding in which Mothers daughter, Le.Z., was declared a child of the juvenile court. We conclude although substantial evidence did not support the jurisdictional finding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j),[1] substantial evidence did support the jurisdictional findings pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b). Therefore the jurisdictional order and the dispositional order removing Le.Z. from her parents custody should be affirmed. Court also find that the juvenile courts denial of Mothers request to represent herself was not an abuse of discretion. Court reverse the jurisdictional finding pursuant to section 300, subdivision (j), but otherwise affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.

Appellant and a codefendant, Fred Brown, were charged with the murder of Byron Lee (count 1), the attempted premeditated murder of Glover H. (count 2), and the attempted murder of Kerry P. (count 3), plus firearms and criminal street gang allegations. Appellant and Brown had separate jury trials. Brown was tried first. He was convicted of all charges. Court affirmed his conviction in a nonpublished opinion. (People v. Brown (Aug. 29, 2008, B201909).) Appellants jury found him guilty on count 1 of the second degree murder of Lee with true findings on the gang and firearms allegations. On count 3, he was convicted of attempted murder with true findings on the gang and firearms allegations and on premeditation. The jury deadlocked on count 2, which was later dismissed on the Peoples motion. Appellant was sentenced on counts 1 and 3 to a total of 55 years to life in prison, plus 20 years. Appellants sole contention is that the trial court erred when it denied his motion under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). The Faretta motion was made on the day of trial during a hearing on appellants motion to substitute counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). The trial court denied the motion on the ground it was untimely. Court find no abuse of discretion in that denial and affirm.

The juvenile court found four minor children persons within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The court also issued a dispositional order declaring the children dependents of the court and detaining them from their presumed father. The father appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders. Court affirm.

Appellant Ch. G. (mother) appeals from two orders of the juvenile court. One order denied her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, wherein she sought to modify an order terminating family reuinification services provided by respondent Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). The other order terminated her parental rights with respect to two children. Court affirm.

In return for dismissal of additional charges, defendant, Lucian Gragos Burcea, pled no contest in case No. 03F10812 to spousal battery (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (c)) and received five years formal probation. In case No. 04F11030, he pled no contest to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), and received a drug treatment referral. A year later, the court found defendant had violated his probation in both cases. It sentenced him to the upper term of four years for spousal battery, and sentenced him to a consecutive eight months in prison (one-third the midterm) for possessing a controlled substance. Court further conclude defendants appeal is without merit and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Rudolph Edward Marshall was convicted by jury of two counts of kidnapping with intent to commit robbery (Pen. Code, 209, subd. (b)(1) -- counts 1 and 5),[1]two counts of second degree robbery ( 211 -- counts 2 and 6), two counts of carjacking ( 215, subd. (a) -- counts 3 and 7), two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1) -- counts 4 and 9), and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm ( 245, subd. (b) -- count 8). As to counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, the jury also found that defendant used a firearm in the commission of those offenses. ( 12022.53, subd. (b).) On count 8, the jury found that defendant used a firearm. ( 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a).) Following a waiver of jury trial, the court found defendant had previously been convicted of a serious felony ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and that he had served a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant appeals the convictions, contending trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to consolidation of cases involving separate victims and the trial court prejudicially erred by excluding evidence of third party culpability. Court affirm.

Both defendants appeal, raising some claims individually and some jointly. They assert that (1) their cases should have been severed, (2) defendant Grant was improperly shackled in the courtroom, (3) the court did not instruct on all of the elements of the charged offense, (4) the court erred in denying defendant Rhodess request for entrapment instructions, (5) the court gave an inadequate response to jury questions about aiding and abetting, (6) the court erred in instructing the jury when it reported a deadlock, and (7) sentences were incorrectly imposed on defendant Rhodes for prior prison term enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b); unspecified section references that follow are to the Penal Code. Court agree in part with this last contention and therefore remand the matter for resentencing, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Miguel Rodriguez appeals from the judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty as charged of two counts of forcible rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2); Cts. 1, 2),[1]one count of forcible sodomy ( 286, subd. (c); Ct. 3), and one count of forcible oral copulation upon the victim, D. ( 288a, subd. (c)(2); Ct. 4.) The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 24 years, comprised of four mid term sentences ordered to run fully consecutive under the more stringent provisions of section 667.6, subdivision (d). On appeal, he raises several challenges including the claim that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense of mistake of fact. Finding no legal error, Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Robert Scott Paig of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288.5; unspecified section references that follow are to the Penal Code) and lewd and lascivious conduct committed on another child ( 288, subd. (a)). The jury found multiple victims to be involved, and also found charged priors to be true. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 100 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) evidence of uncharged sex offenses should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352; (2) the court erred in modifying the jury instruction relating to other sex offenses; (3) the jury, rather than the court, should have determined whether defendant was the person involved in the charged priors; and (4) the court erred in imposing a $70 AIDS education fine. Only this last claim has merit. Court strike the fine and otherwise affirm the judgment.