CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant American Contractors Indemnity Company, as surety on a $25,000 bail bond given to secure the appearance of Michael Salinas, appeals from the summary judgment entered against it on the bond after Salinas failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. American raises three claims of error, including a dispositive claim that on a prior occasion, the bond was exonerated when Salinas also failed to appear but the court did not declare a forfeiture as it was required to do under Penal Code section 1305, resulting in a loss of the courts jurisdiction to later declare a forfeiture and enter summary judgment. Respondent People concede this point and reverse.[

Defendant Gerald Albert Carter pleaded no contest to three felony counts involving victim Jane Doe, a child under the age of 14, including continuous sexual abuse of a child -- resident child molesting (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a); count 1);[1] lewd or lascivious act on a child by force, violence, duress, menace and fear ( 288, subd. (b)(1); count 2); and lewd or lascivious act on a child ( 288, subd. (a); count 3). He was sentenced to the middle term of 12 years on count 1 and consecutive terms of one-third the middle term (two years) on counts 2 and 3, for a total term of 16 years.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the middle term of 12 years on count 1, because the circumstances in mitigation outweighed the circumstances in aggravation and therefore the court should have imposed the lower term of six years. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and Court affirm the judgment.

This appeal has been taken from the revocation of defendants probation that resulted in imposition of a six-year sentence in state prison. He complains of the failure of the trial court to obtain and consider a supplemental probation upon revocation of his probation. Court find that although error occurred, it was not prejudicial to defendant, and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Kevin Bruce Couturier (appellant) appeals his conviction by jury trial of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364) on the ground that it was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Defendant Adam Richard Henry was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine and a smoking device in violation of the Health and Safety Code. Defendant appeals the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, and his motion to dismiss pursuant to section 995. Defendant contends the trial court should have suppressed the evidence because the police unlawfully detained him, the detention was impermissibly prolonged, and a patsearch was illegal. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Kelly Michael Kilman appeals a judgment sentencing him to a term of 45 years to life in state prison following his convictions of robbery and commercial burglary with allegations of multiple prior serious felony convictions. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike his prior convictions and that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He also claims the court erred in calculating his presentence custody credits. Court affirm the judgment of conviction, but modify the sentence to award defendant an additional 48 days of conduct credit.

The minors involved in this judicial dependency case are a teenaged brother and sister who have always been in their mothers custody. In 2006, the minors and their mother were living in Contra Costa County. Their father, who lives in Alameda County, temporarily gained custody of them under an order from the family court in San Mateo County, apparently on the basis of the fathers contention that the mothers boyfriend was sexually abusing the sister. After the father hit the sister with a belt and shoe, and otherwise mistreated both siblings, they ran away from his home and returned to Contra Costa County, where they were detained by the juvenile court and then returned to their mother. After the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petitions against the father as to both siblings. At the dispositional hearing, the court granted sole physical custody of the siblings to their mother, awarded joint legal custody and supervised visitation to their father, and terminated the dependency proceedings. The father appeals, arguing that the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional decisions are not supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm.

Santos Z. (father) appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional order adjudging his minor children, Savannah and Simon, dependents pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c). Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the courts finding of jurisdiction. Court affirm the jurisdictional order.

Defendant Juan Barrios appeals his conviction by jury trial of simple possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b))[1](count 1)[2]and sale or transportation of marijuana ( 11360, subd. (a)) (count 2). Defendant was sentenced to five years probation, with imposition of sentence suspended, and a 90-day jail term. Defendants counsel advises this court that her examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has advised her client in writing that a Wende brief was filed and that defendant had the right to file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. No such brief was filed.

Defendant Edward C. Williams appeals an order revoking his probation. He was sentenced to three years in state prison less credit for time served. Defendants counsel advises this court that her examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has advised her client in writing that a Wende brief was filed and that defendant had the right to file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. No such brief was filed.

Laura Lona Glover appeals following her jury convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or more. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks for our review of the record of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Glover has not filed a supplemental brief. Court have reviewed the record and affirm.

By this petition for extraordinary writ (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l);[1]Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452), Julie P. challenges orders of the Sonoma County Superior Court, entered at the conclusion of the six-month review hearing ( 366, subd. (a)(1), 366.21, subd. (e)). The juvenile court terminated reunification services to Julie, and set a hearing to determine whether her parental rights to Edward should be terminated. ( 366.26.) The petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. The section 366.26 hearing is set for September 4, 2008. Therefore, this opinion is final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).).

A modification decision.

Hugo Hernandez, while an inmate in state prison, was found in possession of heroin. Outside the jury's presence, he informed the court he intended to testify that he was a victim, coerced by threats of fellow prisoners, into possessing the drugs, but would refuse to reveal the names of those inmates "for fear of reprisals upon his return to prison." The trial court stated that Hernandez could not testify to the coercion unless he was willing to identify the inmates who coerced him. Court affirm.