CA Unpub Decisions

In these petitions[1]for writ relief, parents ask us to vacate the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services and setting a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[2]for their four children. They assert that continuances of various hearings in violation of section 352 did not allow them adequate time to complete their case plans. In addition, they contend that the juvenile court erred in its findings that they had failed to participate in their case plans and that there was a substantial risk of detriment if their children were returned to their care. Court disagree and, accordingly, Court deny the petitions.

A modification decision.

On March 28, 2007, an information was filed in Fresno County Superior Court, charging appellant Esteven Alvarez with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, 191.5, subd. (a); count 1), driving under the influence and causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (a); count 2), gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (c)(1); count 3), driving with a suspended license, with prior convictions (Veh. Code, 14601.2, subd. (a); count 4), and unlawful vehicle operation (id., 23247, subd. (e); count 5). He subsequently pled guilty to counts 4 and 5, both misdemeanors; counts 1 and 2 were dismissed, upon motion of the prosecutor, for insufficient evidence; and jury trial proceeded on count 3. Following his conviction thereon, appellant was sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to pay various fees and fines, and his driving privilege was revoked (Veh. Code, 13351). He now appeals, raising claims of evidentiary and instructional error. In addition, respondent contends the case must be remanded for a determination of victim restitution. For the reasons that follow, Court reject appellants contentions, but agree with respondent.

This is an appeal from judgment entered after trial to the court sitting without a jury. Defendant and appellant Bertha Berliner contends the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Juan Thomas Wilkinson was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and various other crimes after he stabbed his friend in the neck. On appeal, he contends (1) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by arguing an unconsciousness defense, upon which the jury was not instructed, and expressly withdrawing a voluntary intoxication defense, upon which the jury was instructed, and (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct sua sponte on the defense of unconsciousness. Court affirm.

Appellant, Francisco Guzman Garcia, challenges his conviction for attempting to commit a lewd and lascivious act upon a child (Pen. Code, 664/288, subd. (c)(1)). According to appellant, the evidence was insufficient to establish that he intended to touch the child. As discussed below, there is sufficient evidence to support the jurys verdict. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.

This is an appeal from a judgment after the trial court granted a motion for nonsuit made by defendant and respondent Heart N Soul Tax Services of Vallejo, Inc. Plaintiff and appellant Leslie McMahan filed the action below as an appeal from an adverse decision of the Labor Commissioner, which appeal is to be heard de novo (see Lab. Code, 98.2.), and has appealed the resulting judgment to this court. Court reverse the judgment.

R.R. (father) appeals an order made at the six-month review hearing continuing placement of his three sons out of his care under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that his sons would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to his care. Court affirm the order.

A jury convicted Eugene Baird of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459; all references to this code unless noted) and grand theft ( 487, subd. (a)). The trial court found he had suffered a prior felony conviction qualifying as a strike under the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1); 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1)), and had served three prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
Defendant argues the trial court erred when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress evidence ( 1538.5). He also argues the reasonable doubt instruction (CALCRIM No. 220) is constitutionally flawed. As explained below, Court affirm the judgment.

Minor George T. (defendant) was charged by an amended petition with conspiracy, in violation of Penal Code section 182, subdivision (a)(1) (count one), to commit the crime of vehicle burglary, and with street terrorism, in violation of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a) (count two). It was also alleged as to count one that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b).) The court dismissed count one and the gang enhancement allegation. It found the allegations of count two true beyond a reasonable doubt. The court ordered that defendant continue as a ward of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) It also granted custody of him to the probation officer for commitment to an appropriate juvenile facility for 180 days, with credit for 102 days served. Defendant argues that the Peoples only theory was conspiracy, and that the courts finding that he aided and abetted a gang member in attempting to steal a car constituted reliance on a new theory that was neither noticed nor litigated at trial. He claims the courts action was tantamount to state interference resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. Notice was given in the charging section of the amended petition. Court affirm.

A jury convicted Michael Gary Martinez of inducing false testimony, criminal threats, and misdemeanor battery. (Pen. Code, 137, subd. (b); 242, 422.) Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior domestic violence he perpetrated on a girlfriend and in declining to strike for purposes of sentencing his prior felony conviction for criminal threats against the girlfriend. As Court explain below, defendants arguments are without merit and Court therefore affirm the judgment.

On October 26, 2006, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an information in which appellant was charged with one count of rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2), count one) [1] and one count of forcible oral copulation ( 288, subd. (c), count two). The information alleged that appellant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (a strike) within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12.
A jury found appellant guilty on the rape charge, but not guilty on the charge of forcible oral copulation. Thereafter, the court found true the prior serious felony conviction allegation.
The judgment is affirmed.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition for the midterm of six years in state prison, appellant Luis Antonio Caballero entered a no contest plea to a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) (lewd act with a child under 14 years of age). The remaining counts were dismissed. He was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated disposition. Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.

Raul Gonzalez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury on one count of selling, transporting or offering to sell a controlled substance (cocaine base). Court affirm.