CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Chanty Keo of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189, 664, subd. (a)[1]; count 1), robbery ( 211; count 2), assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2); count 3), two counts of burglary ( 459; counts 4 & 8), unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a); count 5), selling a stolen vehicle ( 496d; count 6), grand theft ( 487, subd. (a); count 7), and attempted grand
Court affirm.

In this dissolution of marriage case, respondent PA obtained a postjudgment order restraining appellant BA from harassing, following or stalking her; keeping her under surveillance; blocking her movements; or hiring or instructing others to do so. BA appeals, contending observation of an alcohol-abusing parent in public places is permissible because it is relevant to custody and visitation; the order improperly prohibited BA from learning whether PA was drinking excessively or driving while under the influence of alcohol; PA's right to privacy does not include the right to be unobserved while drinking in public places; the order did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6;[1]and PA's subsequent arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol and guilty plea to driving with a blood alcohol level of .14 percent provides a further reason for reversal.
Based on the stipulation of the parties under section 128, subdivision (a)(8), the order is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the order. The remittitur shall issue immediately. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Perry T. Franklin pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and admitted he had been previously convicted of a narcotics offense (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2), had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court struck the prior prison term and prior narcotics conviction and sentenced him to an eight year prison term, which consisted of the middle term doubled due to his prior strike conviction. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant David Lashay Brown appeals from his conviction on multiple counts. We reject the majority of his contentions, but agree that the court erred in imposing unstayed sentences on two counts of resisting or obstructing an officer. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment but will remand with directions to the trial court to modify the sentence.

On April 1, 2003, defendant and appellant Christopher Columbus Richardson was charged by felony complaint in case No. INF043687 with one count of inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a spouse or cohabitant after having previously been convicted of a domestic violence offense. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (e).) On May 8, 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to the charged offense, requested immediate sentencing, and was placed on five years probation. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.

A jury found defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and being a felon in possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1)).[1] Defendant admitted suffering seven prior convictions for which he served prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of nine years. Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle because defendant was illegally detained. Additionally, defendant contends that the prosecutor violated defendants constitutional rights to due process by (a) allowing a witness to offer perjured testimony at the suppression hearing; and (b) failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. Court affirm the judgment.

Jesse D. and Kelly D. appeal from orders terminating their parental rights to their children, J.D. and C.D., and freeing the children for adoption by the maternal grandparents. Both parents argue that the juvenile court denied them due process when it refused to permit live testimony in connection with their petitions for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388.)[1] Father also contends that the court denied him due process when it refused to allow him to call five year old C.D. as a witness at the selection and implementation hearing, in support of fathers argument that the beneficial parental relationship exception applied. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The parents join in each others arguments. The orders terminating parental rights and freeing J.D. and C.D. for adoption are affirmed.

Denise G. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile courts findings from the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing declaring her son, Blaine B. (the minor), a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 360, subdivision (d). Mothers sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b). Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Yvonne J. (Mother) is the mother of 11-month-old Kevin (the minor). She filed this appeal challenging the juvenile courts order removing the minor from her custody. Mothers sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in ordering the minor removed from her custody because he was not at any risk of harm. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Amittai Rahul Rai was convicted of one count of rape of an unconscious person in violation of Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(4).[1] He appeals, claiming his counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations, the trial court erred in examining potential jurors outside of defendants presence, the trial court did not properly instruct on the required mental state, and the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Court affirm.

In this child custody dispute, appellant Kelly Sweet (Sweet) was initially granted joint physical custody of her daughter, Sophie, but that arrangement was modified by the trial court due in part to evidence of Sweets misuse of alcohol. The modified custody order gave the father, respondent Karl Noland (Noland), sole physical custody of Sophie with Sweet having supervised visitation through Family Services of Tulare County (Family Services) at a location known as CHAT House. Later, Sweet requested that the trial court allow visitation to occur in her own home under the supervision of Sophies grandmother. The trial court denied Sweets request. The order indicated the matter could be placed back on the courts calendar if Sweet successfully completed therapy, co-parenting counseling and continued in her alcohol treatment program. Sweet appeals from that order, contending the trial court abused its discretion by failing to take the best interest of the child into consideration. We conclude that no abuse of discretion has been shown and accordingly affirm the trial courts order.

The Merced County Juvenile Court placed Augustine R. at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (DJJ) under a 10-year 3-month maximum period of confinement after Augustine admitted 14 counts of violating probation and a misdemeanor count of unlawfully resisting or obstructing a police officer. (Pen. Code 148, subd. (a)(1).) On appeal, Augustine contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by not imposing a less-restrictive commitment. Court affirm the juvenile courts disposition.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Robert Earl Urquhart pled no contest to attempted rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2), 664),and admitted having suffered three prior strike convictions ( 667, subds. (c)-(j)). Sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, he now appeals, claiming the trial court erred by denying his request to dismiss two prior strike convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero)(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). For the reasons that follow, Court affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Robert Earl Urquhart pled no contest to attempted rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2), 664),and admitted having suffered three prior strike convictions ( 667, subds. (c)-(j)). Sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, he now appeals, claiming the trial court erred by denying his request to dismiss two prior strike convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero)(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). For the reasons that follow, Court affirm.