CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Aureliano Banuelos appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of assault with a firearm and found the enhancement allegations to be true. The trial court sentenced Banuelos to a determinate term of 23 years followed by a term of 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law. Court affirm.

Kathleen C. challenges a dependency courts jurisdictional orders. She argues the evidence does not support the courts findings that (1) her oldest son sexually abused her youngest son, and that (2) she is unable to protect her youngest son from sexual abuse by his brother. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, subd. (d).) Court agree. The dependency courts findings regarding sexual abuse are reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions that the court make such further orders as are consistent with a nonfinding of sexual abuse.

Javier Hernandez Cervantes was convicted by jury of criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422; count 1) and misdemeanor battery ( 242; count 2).[1] The trial court sentenced appellant to the mid-term of two years in state prison. On count 2, it imposed a concurrent sentence of 162 days in county jail. Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of making a criminal threat, and that the trial court erred by refusing to give a self defense instruction and by admitting evidence of his five prior convictions. Court affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Thomas Hawkins III (appellant) appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered against him and in favor of defendant and respondent Cecil Hotel (respondent) after the trial court sustained without leave to amend respondents demurrer to appellants second amended complaint. He contends the second amended complaint stated a cause of action for discrimination in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), Californias Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, 51 et seq.) and Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12955). Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Danny Delapaz Rivera appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful possession of ammunition. The trial court sentenced Rivera to a term of four years in prison. Riveras sole contention on appeal is that Penal Code section 654 bars imposition of sentence on one of the convictions. Court disagree, and affirm the convictions and sentence.

Defendants Cathedral Oaks Tennis, Swim & Athletic Club, Inc. (COTSAC) and Richard Berti appeal an order denying their motion to disqualify attorney A. Barry Cappello and the law firm of Cappello & Nol who represent plaintiffs Oded Gottesman and Anat Gottesman in their negligence and wrongful death action. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to disqualify counsel and finding that there was no substantial relationship between the current case and prior cases where Cappello's firm assisted Berti. Court affirm.

Defendant Oscar Clayborne Lee entered a negotiated plea of no contest to failure to register as a sex offender within five working days of his birthday (former Pen. Code, 290, subds. (a)(1)(D), (g)(2); Stats. 2006, ch. 337, 11 [now Pen. Code, 290.012, subd. (a), 290.018, subd. (b); Stats. 2007, ch. 579, 20, 26]) and admitted a strike prior [1993 conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, 288.5)] (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) in exchange for a state prison term of 32 months, that is, the low term of 16 months, The judgment is affirmed.

Terence Nigel Battles appeals a judgment arising out of his conviction of burglary and attempted burglary. (The same judgment also includes convictions on two counts of resisting an officer; however, Battles does not appeal from those convictions and we thus affirm the judgment as to those convictions.) He contends that the trial court erred in admitting unduly prejudicial bad act evidence against him and that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he entered the premises or that he had the specific intent necessary to support either offense. Court agree with Battles's first contention and reverse the judgment on that basis, but reject his challenges to the insufficiency of the evidence and remand the matter for further proceedings.

David Allen Meyers entered negotiated guilty pleas to making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422)[1]and discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner ( 246.3). As part of the plea bargain, Meyers also admitted he personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) and had a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prior serious conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). In exchange for the guilty pleas and admissions, the prosecution agreed to dismiss a felony count and a related misdemeanor count. After denying Meyers's Romero (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) motion to dismiss the strike allegation, the trial court sentenced Meyers to 10 years eight months in prison. Meyers appeals, contending the court abused its discretion by denying his Romero motion.

A jury found Epolo Lisangi guilty of selling a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) (count 1) and possessing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) (count 2). Lisangi waived jury and in a bifurcated proceeding admitted allegations of a prior Health and Safety Code section 11352 conviction (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a)) as to count 1 and a no probation prior conviction (Pen. Code, 1203.07, subd. (a)(11)) as to both counts. The court sentenced him to six years in prison: the three year lower term for selling cocaine base; three years for the Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) enhancement; and a concurrent 16-month lower stayed (Pen. Code, 654) term for possessing cocaine base. Lisangi appeals. Court affirm.

In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny her requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Erin J.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

A.M. appeals the findings and orders entered at the permanency planning hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. The appeal is dismissed.

Carlos O. appeals the findings and orders entered at the six-month review hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. The appeal is dismissed.

G.L. (Father) appeals from one of the jurisdictional findings regarding his four children. Specifically, Father argues substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts conclusion that Fathers history of domestic violence poses a substantial risk that the children will suffer serious physical harm under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivision (b). For the reasons set forth below, Court reverse the juvenile courts true finding as to that allegation.