CA Unpub Decisions

Kenneth T. (Kenneth) appeals from a dispositional order committing him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), after the juvenile court sustained multiple counts of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition and found true certain enhancement allegations. Kenneth contends: (1) the finding that he committed an assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2))[1]was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support an enhancement for infliction of great bodily injury ( 12022.7); (3) his punishment for being a minor in possession of a firearm ( 12101, subd. (a)(1)) must be stayed pursuant to section 654; (4) his constitutional rights were violated because he was shackled during the contested jurisdictional hearing; (5) his maximum term of confinement violates Cunningham v. California (2007) 127 S.Ct. 856 (Cunningham); (6) the conditions of his probation must be stricken because he was committed to DJJ; and (7) the cumulative effect of the purported errors requires reversal.
Court modify the judgment such that: the eight-month term imposed on count 7 for possession of a firearm by a minor is stayed pursuant to section 654; and the probation conditions are stricken. As so modified, the judgment will be affirmed.

Kristie T. Meyer appeals from the judgment of conviction after entry of her no contest plea. In the middle of appellants trial for seven theft-related felonies, the court granted appellants Marsden[1] motion and relieved her attorney. The court then declared a mistrial. Appellants substitute counsel filed a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy. Prior to the hearing on that motion, appellant entered into a plea agreement on condition that she could still litigate and, if necessary, appeal the double jeopardy issue. Her motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was subsequently denied. Appellant contends the trial court erred in declaring a mistrial because she did not consent and legal necessity did not require it. Court disagree and hence affirm the convictions.

Defendant appeals from the extension of his civil commitment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b). He asserts that substantial evidence in the record does not support a finding that he was unable to control his behavior, which was required in order to extend his involuntary commitment to a mental institution. Court conclude that substantial evidence did support the extension of defendants commitment to a mental institution and affirm the judgment.

Archibald Cunningham appeals in propria persona rom a judgment and related orders of the San Francisco Superior Court awarding sole legal and physical custody of the parties seven year old daughter to her mother, respondent Mary Wang, following a court trial before the Honorable Donald Sullivan. Respondent has not filed a respondents brief. Appellant raises numerous claims of error, including: Court affirm the judgment.

Neighborhood residents petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate to overturn a city planning commissions approval of a building development. (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5.) The trial court denied the petition upon concluding that the commission was authorized to allow certain modifications to planning code requirements, that the permitted modifications were supported by legally sufficient findings of fact, and that those findings were supported by the administrative record. court agree with the trial court, and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Carlos Marquez Zavala appeals from an order terminating his probation and sentencing him to a three year eight month term of imprisonment for cocaine possession (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)). Appellants court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have done so and find no issues that merit briefing.

Davidon Homes (Davidon) appeals from the lower courts denial of its petition for writ of mandate. Davidon filed its petition after the City of Napa (Napa) rejected its application to develop 80.6 acres of undeveloped real property. Davidon claimed that, in rejecting its application, Napa violated the Map Filing Freeze Statute (Gov. Code, 66474.2, subd. (a)) and that this violation prejudiced Davidon. The lower court found that Napa had violated the Map Filing Freeze Statute but Davidon had suffered no prejudice. It therefore denied Davidons petition. Court affirm the lower courts ruling.

Lavadis Henderson appeals from a judgment and sentence after a no contest plea. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Court find no such issues and affirm.

Christine W., the mother of Q. P., petitions this court to set aside the juvenile courts order setting a permanent plan hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends that the juvenile court erred in denying her reunification services. Court deny the petition.

Defendant Erwin Barillas appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of two special circumstance first degree murders and one premeditated attempted murder. His sole contention is that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the proper use of accomplice testimony. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Defendants and appellants Alex Meruelo appeal from the order of the trial court denying his motion for attorneys fees. The court reasoned that defendants counsel was a stranger to the case because, at the time counsel moved for attorney fees, no form substituting counsel into the case was on file in the trial court. We hold that the ruling was error. Counsel had filed a substitution of attorney form in the Court of Appeal and so the failure to file the form in the trial court constituted a mere technical irregularity that should not preclude defendants from recovering contractually authorized attorney fees. Accordingly, the order is reversed.

Defendant and appellant Maxtec Machinery Inc. (Maxtec) appeals an order denying its motion to vacate a sister-state default judgment obtained by plaintiff and respondent Allied Machine & Engineering Corp. (Allied) in Ohio. Court perceive no error in the trial courts refusal to vacate the judgment and therefore affirm the order.