CA Unpub Decisions

After the trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5), a jury convicted Arthur P. Benavides of assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 1 & 3), making a criminal threat ( 422; counts 4 & 5), dissuading a witness by force or threat ( 136.1, subd. (c)(1); count 6), possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 7), and possession of ammunition by a felon ( 12316, subd. (b)(1); count 8). As to count 2, the jury found Benavides guilty of a lesser included offense of brandishing a firearm ( 417). The court found all prior convictions true as alleged. The court sentenced Benavides to a total prison term of 19 years and eight months, with credit for time served of 278 days. Benavides's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. He contends any exigent circumstances justifying a protective sweep evaporated once police took him into custody. Benavides further argues his mother did not have apparent authority to consent to a search of the converted garage. Court reverse the judgment.

Kenneth Kirk Colbert entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of possession of cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5.) As part of the plea, Colbert admitted the applicability of three Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) enhancements, and five prison priors (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). As Colbert recognized in a plea form and in a preplea colloquy with the trial court, the guilty plea exposed him to a maximum prison term of 19 years in prison and a $20,000 fine.
After exercising its discretion to strike the three Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 enhancements (see People v. McCray (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 258, 267), the trial court rejected the prosecution's recommendation of a 19 year prison term and sentenced Colbert to eight years in prison, the lower term of three years for the offense plus an additional five years for the five prison priors.

A jury convicted Peter Corona of the sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and possessing a controlled substance for sale ( 11351). The trial court sentenced Corona to 10 years in prison: the lower term of three years for selling a controlled substance doubled by virtue of Corona's prior strike, with an additional four years based on Corona's four prison priors. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b), 668.) The court stayed imposition of sentence on the possession for sale count under Penal Code section 654.

Jared M. appeals dispositional orders removing his three children, three-year-old Jared M., Jr., two-year-old Jeremiah M., and one-year-old J.M., from parental custody. He contends the court erred by removing the children because the children's mother, Jacqueline L., and he were participating in services and were willing to separate to protect the children. Court affirm the orders.

Rachel M. appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor son Pedro E. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Rachel contends her due process rights were violated when the San Diego CountyHealth and Human Services Agency (Agency) served notice of the section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing on her attorney without first using diligent efforts to locate her. Court affirm the judgment.

Nicole O., appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her son Nicolas O. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Nicole contends her parental rights were terminated without proper notice of the section 366.26 hearing. Nicole also contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by not granting her counsel's request for a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing. The judgment is affirmed.

that the court erred by failing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception and the relative caregiver exception to adoption. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A) & (D).)[2] They further contend that the matter must be remanded for proper notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the court's findings that neither the beneficial parent-child relationship, nor the relative caregiver exception to adoption, apply to preclude terminating parental rights. We further conclude that the court and the San Diego CountyHealth and Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA notice requirements.

Yolanda C. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her child, Danny C., and an order denying her motion for a continuance of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. She contends the court lacked sufficient evidence of Danny's developmental status to support a finding he was likely to be adopted, and the court abused its discretion by not granting a continuance.

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 his [or her] custody of a child or his [or her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny their requests to review the record for error and to address their Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) The appeals are dismissed.

Christopher C. petitions for writ review of juvenile court orders terminating his reunification services regarding his children, Jesse W. and J.W., and referring the matter to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. He contends the court erred because he was not provided with reasonable services, and he made substantive progress in court-ordered treatment. Court deny the petition.

On June 21, 2005, San Bernardino Police Officers Baker and Walker, who were familiar with defendant and aware that he had an outstanding arrest warrant and engaged in drug sales, were patrolling a high-crime area when they spotted defendant. As Officer Walker exited his patrol vehicle, defendant ran into a business. The officers followed defendant and noticed him making a throwing motion. Defendant was arrested on the outstanding warrant. The officers searched the storage room of the business and found a plastic bag containing five individually wrapped baggies of cocaine base. A search of defendant revealed that he had $815 in cash on his person. Defendant was subsequently released on bail.
The judgment is affirmed.

Trisha S. (Mother) appeals from the termination of her parental rights to Noah C. from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing., Mother raises one issue on appeal: that the juvenile court erred by denying her request for a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing so that she could provide additional documentation supporting her section 388 petition. Court find no error. Hence, Court affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Robert Brian Eck pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 1)[1]and one count of possession of ammunition ( 12316, subd. (b)(1), count 2). Defendant admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) In exchange, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of three years on count 1,[2]doubled because of the strike conviction to six years, plus a consecutive term of 16 months on count 2. However, the court gave defendant a stay of execution that was to expire on March 1, 2007. Defendant was released on a Vargas[3]waiver. Under the Vargas waiver, if defendant violated no laws, and returned to court on March 1, 2007, the court would reduce the seven-year four-month sentence to three years on count 2, dismiss the other count, and strike the prior strike allegation. On the other hand, if he violated the law or failed to appear for the sentencing hearing, the seven year four-month sentence would remain. Defendant filed a notice of appeal two months after the sentencing hearing. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Court affirm.

This petition involves the trial courts summary denial of petitioners request that it change a previous order or orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388.) Mother is not involved in the petition; fathers identity only became known after the trial court had set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The factual and procedural history of the case is otherwise not relevant to the issue before us.