CA Unpub Decisions

After a one-man crime wave in January 2007, a jury found defendant Robert Earnest Goldsberry guilty of criminal threats (count 1); misdemeanor assault (count 3); two counts of felony vandalism causing $400 or more of damage (counts 6 and 8); two counts of misdemeanor vandalism (counts 7 and 12); and misdemeanor dependent adult abuse (count 11). The court sentenced defendant to three years four months in prison. On appeal, defendant contends: 1) the court should have granted his continuance motion to obtain private counsel of his choosing; and 2) the denial of his motion to sever the first three counts was an abuse of discretion. Court affirm.

Plaintiff, the Cadle Company, appeals from the trial courts order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 (hereafter, section 473.5) setting aside a default judgment that plaintiff had obtained against defendant, Allison S. Taylor. Court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and therefore affirm.

The last time this case was before us, we determined the trial court erred at sentencing. It had imposed a one-year enhancement under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b),[1]pursuant to the jurys determination that defendant Patrick Nelson Fay was personally armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of a robbery. Section 12022, subdivision (b), however, applies only where the defendant uses a deadly weapon in committing a felony. The jury here made no such finding. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant T.T., the mother of the minors R.T. and J.T., appeals from an order of the juvenile court following the 18 month review hearing continuing the minors out of home placement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.22, 395.) Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the courts finding that returning the minors to her physical custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the[ir] safety, protection, or physical or emotional well being.
( 366.22, subd. (a).) Court affirm the order.

A jury convicted John Payne, Jr., of three counts of robbery and three counts of burglary. Payne was sentenced to a prison term of five years. He appeals, contending the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of robbery and burglary in counts 3 and 4. Court agree and reverse the judgment as to appellant's convictions in counts 3 and 4. In all other respects Court affirm the judgment.

Felipe Neri Sanchez Gomez filed a complaint against defendants William C. Comer and Comer's employer, Drake Transport, Inc. (Drake). The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the statute of limitations barred Gomez's claim. On appeal, Gomez claims that the trial court erred in concluding that the doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply to render Gomez's complaint timely filed.
After the parties had filed their briefs in this case, this court requested that the parties submit supplemental briefs addressing whether Gomez's notice of appeal was timely filed. (E.g., Drum v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 845, 849 ["because the timeliness of an appeal poses a jurisdictional issue, we must raise the point sua sponte"].) Court conclude that Gomez's notice of appeal was not timely filed, and that this court thus lacks appellate jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Accordingly, Court dismiss the appeal.

Esther M. appeals judgments removing her children, Adrianna P., M.G., Maurice G., Jr., and Q.G., from her custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c), and challenges orders denying reunification services to her under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(3) and (c). Court affirm the judgments and orders.

On June 24, 2006, defendant was at his home in Hemet, drinking beer with his family and friends. That evening, defendant and his brother, Frank Castro, got into an argument because defendant disrespected their mother. Frank jumped on defendant and hit him in the face until other partygoers pulled him off of defendant. Defendant immediately retreated into the house, grabbed a .22-caliber rifle, emerged from the house, and shot Frank in the leg. Defendant then turned the gun on another friend at the party, Michael Schoullis, who was trying to get defendant to calm down, and shot him three times in the chest. Schoullis died instantly. Defendant was found guilty of the second degree murder of Schoullis and assault with a semiautomatic firearm on Frank.

Defendant Humberto Reyes appeals from an order denying a post judgment motion to vacate judgment (Pen. Code, 1016.5) and petition for writ of error coram nobis. The post judgment applications were made on the ground a Spanish language interpreter did not sign the change of plea form prior to defendants guilty plea to possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) in 1998. Court affirm.

Robert Nolen,[1]a teenaged driver with law enforcement ambitions, pursued an intoxicated driver, Albert Doggett, westbound through Yucca and Morongo Valleys at high speeds. When Doggett crossed into the opposing traffic lanes, he hit an oncoming eastbound vehicle occupied by Jose C. and Esmeralda C. and their two children. The parents were killed. Two-year-old Nayeli was seriously injured. Nayeli and her brother, Joseph, appeal from the trial courts order granting summary judgment in favor of the County of San Bernardino and the State of California.
Plaintiffs predicate defendants liability on plaintiffs theory that the 911 dispatchers instructed and encouraged Nolen to chase Doggett. We affirm the trial courts order and judgment based on several alternative grounds. In addition, Court find immunity for defendants based on Health and Safety Code section 1799.107: Absent a showing of bad faith or gross negligence, defendants are immune under Health and Safety Code section 1799.107 [section 1799.107] for the acts or omissions of the 911 emergency dispatchers in their employ. (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1185.) Court affirm the judgment.

Mother and father, M.M. and Leon J., separately appeal from a dependency judgment concerning their twin daughters. Both parents raise issues regarding compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Both parents also contend the case should be remanded to apply the relative guardianship exception expressed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(A)(1). Court reject these contentions and affirm the dependency judgment.

Mother and Father, the parents of A.F. (almost age 10), Alexis F. (age seven) and R.F. (age two) appeal the denial of their separate petitions to modify the prior order (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388) setting a permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) for all three children, and father appeals from a judgment terminating parental rights with respect to A.F. and R.F.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant and appellant Marco L., Sr., (Father) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating his parental rights to three year old A.L. and four-year-old M.L. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. On appeal, Father asserts numerous errors stemming from the inception of the case and also argues his claims of error are preserved because the writ advisement was inadequate. Court reject Fathers contentions and affirm the judgment.

This is an appeal from judgment entered after a jury found defendant Eugene Jackson guilty of various felony and misdemeanor offenses. Court conclude the error asserted by defendant was not prejudicial. Court modify the sentence to correct an unauthorized sentence. Court affirm the judgment as modified.