CA Unpub Decisions

In April 2007, Sacramento Police Department officers conducted an undercover drug purchase operation in McClatchy Park. A man on a park bench, identified at trial as codefendant Crawford Holloway, told a plainclothes detective that he could get him .20 grams of rock cocaine for $20.[1] The detective gave Holloway a marked $20 bill. Holloway walked over to a group of men 200 to 300 feet away. An officer observed defendant, who was a member of the group, reach into his sock, pull something out, and hand it to Holloway. Five minutes later, Holloway returned to the detective and handed him a pea sized object later determined to be .29 grams of cocaine base. An officer approached defendant, who had a zippered pouch in one hand and was fussing with something in the bushes next to him. A search of defendant revealed marked money and other indicia of narcotics transactions but no narcotics. Defendant made a swallowing motion and then opened his mouth, which was empty.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

In February 2006, defendant Erzsebet Racine asked an acquaintance (informant), to kill her husband. Informant contacted law enforcement, reporting defendants requests on several occasions after he concluded she was serious despite her mood swings and possible mental disorder. Law enforcement wired informant with a recording device. He met with defendant who gave him a photograph of her husband. She asked informant to kill her husband and that she would have the money the following week. Defendant was then arrested. When interviewed by a sheriffs deputy, defendants husband stated that defendant had been taking Lithium for years but stopped when they decided to have children. He reported that she had manic periods every year or two for one or two months at a time. They had recently separated and he believed she was unhappy that he had not repaired her car in a timely manner. Charged with two counts of solicitation of murder (Pen. Code, 653, subd. (b)), defendant first entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity and was evaluated by a court-appointed psychiatrist. Defendant later withdrew her pleas and entered a plea of no contest to count 2 in exchange for a sentencing lid of six years and dismissal of count 1. The court sentenced defendant to state prison for the midterm of six years. The judgment is affirmed.

After an officer employed by the Town of Paradise Police Department detained Stephen Sherfield for a psychiatric evaluation (Welf. & Inst. Code, 5150, further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code) and confiscated a firearm from him ( 8102, subd. (a)), the trial court denied the police departments petition seeking to establish the firearm should not be returned to Sherfield because its return to him would likely endanger him or others. ( 8102, subd. (c).) On appeal, the police department challenges the trial courts interpretation and application of section 8102. Court reverse the judgment.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5),[1]defendant Robert Martinez Valdez pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of defendants sentence and placed him on five years formal probation under various conditions, including a requirement that he serve 120 days in county jail. He appeals, contending the motion to suppress was wrongly denied. ( 1538.5, subd. (m).) Court correct an error in the minute order and affirm.

Rebecca N., mother of P.N. and A.N. (the minors), appeals from the orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in denying her petition for modification and terminating her parental rights. Court affirm.

D.K. (Mother), the mother of nine-year-old R.K., seven-year-old Dominick K. and five-year-old S.K., appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395; further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.) She contends (1) the evidence of adoptability was insufficient, (2) the trial court gave insufficient weight to the sibling bond, and (3) the Sutter County Department of Human Services (the Department) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Court remand the matter for further ICWA proceedings.

Appellants Jenifer N. and Daniel N., parents of the minor, appeal from the juvenile courts order terminating their parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellants sole contention on appeal is that respondent Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the department) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). Court affirm.

In June 2003 Jonathan Q., then 17 years old, admitted assaulting his brother with a knife, and the juvenile court sustained the delinquency petition. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) Subsequently, the court declared Jonathan a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) and committed him to the California Youth Authoritynow known as the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF)for four years. The trial court extended Jonathan's commitment to DJF for two additional years.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Martin A. Hildreth, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Muni. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Directed to enter judgment revised pursuant to stipulation; revised judgment affirmed.

A jury found defendant guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, 664/192, subd. (a)), as a lesser included offense of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187) (count 1), and assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2).[1] As to both counts, the jury found true allegations that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of seven years. Defendant contends (1) the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that there is a rebuttable legal presumption that a defendant reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury to himself or his family if an intruder unlawfully and forcibly entered a defendants home ( 198.5; Judicial Council of Cal. Crim. Jury Instns., CALCRIM No. 3477); and (2) the trial court erred by sentencing defendant for the enhancement of personally using a dangerous or deadly weapon during the commission of assault with a deadly weapon. The People concede defendant is correct as to his second contention. Court affirm the judgment with directions.

Defendant and appellant Carlos Cisneros appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent The Cadle Company II, Inc. (Cadle). Cadle had sued for breach of promissory note, money lent, an account stated, and unjust enrichment. Defendant contends the motion for summary judgment was fatally defective and should not have been considered by the trial court. Defendant failed, however, to raise any of these points below. Court affirm.

Defendant, Abraham Koujababian, was arrested in a sting operation. A private watchdog group, Perverted Justice, employed persons who posed as under age minors on the Internet, to identify adults who prey on children. The police department worked in cooperation with the group. Defendant contacted a member of the group, who used an online profile of a 13-year-old girl. Defendant engaged in Internet chats with the imaginary girl and asked to meet her. Defendant was instructed to go to a location arranged by the Riverside Sheriffs Department where he thought he would meet a 13 year old girl for a sexual encounter. Instead, he was arrested. He was charged with one count of attempting to commit a lewd and lascivious act upon the imaginary underaged girl, in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 288, subdivision (a).
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant, Manuel Vasquez, was charged with possessing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667 subds. (b)-(i)), and that he had been previously convicted of a felony for which he had served a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).)
On October 31, 2007, defendant appealed from the contested violation of probation, and included a challenge to the validity of the plea agreement. The trial court denied defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, defendant was sentenced to state prison for three years and eight months. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant (Mother) is the mother of Karen D. (Karen), who is the subject of this dependency case. Mother appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights, and from its order denying her motion to vacate all previous orders based on a lack of due diligence by the Department of Childrens Services (DCS). Mother contends she was denied her due process right to notice of the dependency proceedings because DCS did not exercise due diligence in its efforts to locate and notify her of Karens dependency proceedings. DCS argues that Mother failed to timely appeal from the denial of her motion to vacate within 60 days of the August 7, 2007, order denying the motion, and so this court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
As discussed below, Court conclude that Mother failed to timely appeal from the order denying her motion to vacate all previous orders, and so dismiss the appeal.