CA Unpub Decisions

On April 3, 2007, a default judgment for $54,396 was entered against respondents Gerardo Reyes and Nancy Hanover Reyes. Respondents motion to set aside the judgment, filed on May 10, 2007, was granted and appellant Lauryn S. Burnett, dba M3 Construction Services, appeals from that order. Court affirm.

Juan Hernandez, also known as Luis Jose Rodriguez, Jose Luis Rodriguez, and Juan Jose Torres, appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459).[1] Defendant admitted a prior conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate state prison term of 17 years and awarded him credits of 1,433 days. Defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) in determining that he was competent to stand trial, thereby depriving him of his due process right to a fair trial, and (2) in its award of presentence credits. Court modify the judgment and affirm.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 et seq.),[1]I.F., mother of the dependent minor child M.C. (Mother and M.C., respectively), and M.C., father of the minor child (Father), appeal from a order that terminated their parental rights to M.C.. The parents assert that the trial court erred when it found that the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) has complied with the notice requirements of the Indian and Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., the ICWA). Our review of the record shows that this is yet another case in which the Department and the dependency court have failed to comply with the notice requirements of the ICWA. Therefore, a limited reversal of the order from which the parents have appealed will be made to permit compliance with those notice requirements.

Darryl D. (father) challenges the juvenile courts orders denying him a paternity test, finding him to be the alleged father of K.P. (minor), finding that he could not care for the minor, and denying reunification services. Father also contends that the notice required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was not satisfied. On the substantive claims, we find no basis for reversal. But we conclude that this matter must be remanded so that the juvenile court can review the ICWA notices to determine whether they complied with the law. (In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 385 (Brooke C.).) If the notices complied with ICWA, this case may proceed under the applicable dependency law. If the notices did not comply with ICWA, then the juvenile court must ensure compliance. If, after further notices are sent, it is determined that the minor is an Indian Child, the minor or any parent may petition the juvenile court to invalidate its prior orders. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.486(a).) The orders of October 23, 2007, are affirmed.

Defendant and appellant Brandon Rippepoe appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to seven counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and one count of false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, 236) and his admission of an allegation that he used a firearm in the course of one of the robberies. (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b).) Pursuant to an agreement, he was sentenced to a total of 20 years in state prison. Court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Christopher J. Main appeals from judgments entered following orders revoking probation. He was sentenced to prison for the middle term of two years, concurrent, in each of the three cases. The judgments are affirmed.

Elaine A. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights, after the dependency court found that the children are likely to be adopted by their maternal grandmother, who has taken care of them for over four years. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) The order is supported by the record. Accordingly, Court affirm.

L.C., the mother of now three year old E.C., appeals from the juvenile courts January 2008 order terminating mothers parental rights. Court affirm.

Parents appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. They assert the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to continue the selection and implementation hearing. Court disagree.

Kerry Edward Mallett appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of two counts of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1]arising out of the following. In early September 2007, Toan Do reviewed surveillance videos of his laundry business which showed defendant breaking the locks to the coin boxes of the laundry machines and taking the coins. On September 20, 2007, by remote video surveillance, Do saw defendant break a new lock Do had installed. Do called the police who apprehended defendant with a bin containing clothes, screwdrivers, pliers, quarters, and a cordless device. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant O.L. (father) appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over his daughters, D.L. and G.L.,[1] pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (e),[2] and denying him family reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(5) and (b)(6). Father contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that either child suffered severe physical abuse, within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (e). Father further contends that section 300, subdivision (e) requires that a perpetrator deliberately and intentionally inflict abuse on a child, and there was insufficient evidence that he acted with such intent.

On April 1, 2006, at about 3:00 p.m. San Diego Police Officers David Winans and Javon Durham were in their patrol cars at the intersection of Orange and Chamoune Avenues. A vehicle driven by appellant James Sterling Hogan drove through the four-way stop sign without stopping. Appellant waved to the officers as he drove through the intersection. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted Said Zia Shaya of 13 counts of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code,[1] 288, subd. (a); counts 1-10, 13-15) and two counts of committing forcible lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years ( 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 11-12). The jury also found true multiple victim allegations
( 667.61, subd. (c)) as to all counts, within the meaning of the One Strike Law ( 667.61, subds. (b), (c) and (e)), and substantial sexual conduct allegations within the meaning of section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(8) regarding counts 1, 2, 5, 9, 11 and 12. The court sentenced Shaya to a total prison term of 60 years to life.
Shaya appeals, contending the trial court violated his state and federal constitutional rights to counsel by failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), by delegating its factfinding powers to a second attorney, and by summarily adopting that attorney's opinion without putting Shaya's complaints or the basis for their rejection on the record. Court find no prejudicial error and affirm.

This is an appeal from judgment entered after a jury found defendant Joel Gomez guilty of multiple sex crimes. Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to conduct additional competency proceedings immediately before the trial. In addition, defendant contends the court used the wrong burden of proof to determine that he waived his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), that the court inadequately instructed the jury, and that the court erred in denying defendants Wheeler/Batson motion (see Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79; People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258). Finding no prejudicial error, Court affirm the judgment.