CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Marvin Keith Cooley pled guilty to transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and possession of a smoking device (id., 11364), as well as two prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, 667.5) and one prior conviction that constituted a strike within the meaning of the three strikes law (id., 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court struck the prior conviction, sentenced Cooley to a total of five years in prison, suspended the sentence, and placed him on probation. Cooley was placed in a drug program. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Fred Louis Thompson was convicted by jury trial of two counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422); four counts of discharging a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code, 246.3); assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)); disobeying a domestic relations court order (Pen. Code, 273.6); and battery of a spouse (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1)). His wife was the victim in all nine counts.
Thompson was sentenced to state prison for a total term of three years and four months.

On November 4, 2002, appellant Rita Nina Floyd pled guilty to two counts of identity theft in Tuolumne County Superior Court case number CRF9710 (case 9710). (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a).) On March 3, 2003, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for a period of five years. The court imposed a number of terms and conditions, including the condition that appellant obey all laws. The conviction is affirmed.

On December 4, 2003, the Kings County DistrictAttorney filed an information in superior court charging appellant, Gino Ynclan, with two counts of attempted manufacture of a sharp instrument while in prison (Pen. Code,[1] 4502, subd. (b)). The information alleged one prior felony strike ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and four prior prison term enhancements ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The judgment is affirmed.

On October 6, 2006, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information in superior court charging appellant Hector Jabin as follows: count 1felony possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) with a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)), and count 2misdemeanor possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b)).
The judgment is affirmed.

Barry Buchmiller appeals from a summary judgment entered against him on his complaint alleging wrongful termination and related claims. Buchmiller argues the court erred by: (1) failing to consider his evidentiary objections; (2) refusing to consider his claims of constructive, as opposed to actual, discharge; (3) determining, as a matter of law, that he voluntarily resigned his employment; and (4) concluding his claim for emotional distress falls within the exclusive province of the workers compensation law. Court find no error and therefore affirm the judgment.

Dependent minors Dean L. and Ryan L. were removed from a foster care placement in the home of Charles and Debbie L. in May 2006, after a report of physical abuse by Charles against the L.s adopted son was substantiated. In August 2007, the juvenile court terminated the L.s status as de facto parents of Dean and Ryan. The L.s appealed; Court affirm.

Several parties to a defamation action entered into a court-approved settlement agreement. When the settling defendants first payment was due under the settlement agreement, they provided a postdated check to which was attached a note indicating that funds would not be available until a date three days after the expiration of the grace period. Rather than waiting for funds to become available, the plaintiff sought and obtained entry of judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement. The settling defendants appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Mother Rachel M. (mother) challenges the rulings of the juvenile court, rejecting without hearing her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,[1]and terminating parental rights to three of her children. She contends the trial court erred in denying her section 388 petition because her recent activities of enrolling in a drug treatment program, getting a job, and renting an apartment represented changed circumstances justifying a reversal of the courts prior order terminating reunification services. She also contends she demonstrated that termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to her children because the children would benefit from continuing the relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)), and there would be substantial interference with a childrens sibling relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). She also contends the court erred in failing to ensure the Orange County Department of Social Services (SSA) complied with its order requiring notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.. (ICWA).
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mothers section 388 petition. Mothers petition demonstrated at most a last minute attempt to change the circumstances resulting in termination of reunification services. Court also conclude substantial evidence supported the trial courts determination that termination of Mothers rights would not be detrimental to the children. Finally, Court conclude SSA failed to provide the notice required under the ICWA and ordered by the court. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment and remand.

This is the third time this case has been before this court. The facts were presented in detail in the first writ proceeding, David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768 (David B. I). In a second writ petition, David B. v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 772 (David B. II), additional facts were summarized as follows: David B., petitioner, is the father of the minor child Susan M. In August 2002, Susans mother, who had custody of Susan at the time, was arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance. The mother was on parole due to a history of substance abuse and behavior associated with substance abuse. Orange County Social Services (SSA) detained Susan, who was 14 months old at the time, placed her in a foster home, and identified David as her presumed father. Susan was declared a dependent child of the Orange County Juvenile Court in December 2002. (Id. at p. 775.) The petition is denied.

Defendant Hector Chairez pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person. He also admitted two prior convictions for purposes of the Three Strikes law and three prior prison terms for purposes of one year enhancements. The trial court denied his motion to strike one of the strike priors (but struck two of the prison priors) and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life for the convictions plus one year for the prison prior. It also imposed restitution and parole-revocation fines of $10,000 each pursuant to the formula permitted by Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).[1] On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to strike, and (2) the concurrent sentence and fines attributable to that sentence constitute improper multiple punishment ( 654). The People concede the section 654 issue and Court agree that the concession is appropriate. Court otherwise disagree with defendant. Court therefore modify and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Yuri A. Lavalley of being under the influence of drugs (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a)); driving under the influence of drugs (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)); possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364); possession of 28.5 grams of marijuana or less (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b)), and being an unlicensed driver (Veh. Code, 12500, subd. (a)). Lavalley was sentenced to 180 days in jail. She was granted bail pending appeal. The judgment is reversed.

Joy O. appeals a judgment declaring her minor son, Austin E., a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and removing him from her custody. Joy challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings. Court affirm the judgment.