CA Unpub Decisions

In this action for dissolution of marriage brought by Gail Elizabeth Eyster (Gail), her husband Charles David Eyster (Charles)[1]appeals from the order granting her motion to disqualify his attorney David Kindopp and the law office of Duncan M. James.
On appeal, Charles contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in granting the motion based upon subjective factors rather than upon an objective analysis of the legal and factual similarities between the prior and current representations. Court agree that the trial court erred by granting the motion. Because Gail failed to file a respondents brief, Court conducted an independent review of the record and now find the record fails to show the prior and current representations share substantial legal and factual similarities. Court therefore reverse the order.

Originally charged in a single complaint with 57 crimes, defendant Cassandra Sue Bridges entered a negotiated plea of guilty to 10 theft-related felonies in case No. 07F3021. Her sole contention on appeal is that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to show a breakdown of the fines, fees, and penalties associated with the court security fee and property theft fine. This contention has some merit. The $32.50 fine imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.5 is vacated, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings with respect to said fine.

Following the beating of a retired sheriffs deputy, a juvenile wardship petition charged defendant Mark J. with assault by means of force likely to produce bodily injury and battery resulting in serious bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), 243, subd. (d).) The juvenile court found the charges true, adjudged Mark a ward of the court, and committed him to the Warren Thornton Youth Center for a maximum of four years.
Mark appeals, arguing the probation condition that he not be in any place where illegal drugs are present must be stricken and the matter must be remanded to require the court to declare whether the offenses are felonies or misdemeanors. The People agree in general with Marks contentions. Court remand for a modification of the challenged probation condition, and to allow the trial court to declare whether the offenses were felonies or misdemeanors.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. K. M., born August 8, 1990, began dating defendant, who was born on January 29, 1986, in December 2004. Defendant had sex with K. M. on several occasions and she was pregnant by him as of the March 2006 preliminary hearing. The judgment is affirmed.

Following a shooting behind Miguel Jr.s restaurant in Fontana in May 2003, then 15-year-old Miguel Angel Gonzalez (Miguel) was charged with the murder of Aldo Rodriguez, the attempted murder of Albert Sandoval, and discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 664, 246.3; counts 1, 2, & 3.) Miguels older brother, then 21 year old Silvester Junior Gonzalez (Silvester) was charged with the same crimes. The murder victim, Rodriguez, died as a result of his gunshot wounds, but the attempted murder victim, Sandoval, was not struck by any bullets.
Miguel was sentenced to an aggregate term of 50 years to life, plus 40 years 8 months. Silvester was sentenced to 50 years to life, plus 30 years 8 months. Both defendants appeal. Miguel joins Silvesters contentions. Court consider each defendants contentions to the extent they may benefit the other.

Appellant Amanda R. (mother) is the mother of H.G. (born in April 2004). Mother appeals from the juvenile courts ruling terminating her parental rights at a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1]Mother argues that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), that the beneficial parental relationship exception does not apply here. For the reasons described below, Court affirm the juvenile courts ruling.

A juvenile court terminated the parental rights of J.P. (mother) as to her child, A.M. (the child). On appeal, mother claims: 1) the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); and 2) the beneficial relationship exception applied. (Former Welfare and Institutions Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Court agree with mothers ICWA claim. Therefore, Court conditionally vacate the judgment and remand the matter to the juvenile court with directions to order compliance with the ICWA inquiry and notice provisions. In all other respects, Court affirm.

On November 19, 2006, at approximately 10:48 p.m., Modesto Police Officer Daniel Gonzalez was dispatched to an intersection in Modesto to investigate a report of a green Volkswagen driving with its lights off. The vehicle was pulled over to the curb with its engine on. Gonzalez contacted appellant, Manuel Uribe Covarrubias, who was sitting in the drivers seat. He arrested Covarrubias after he failed some field sobriety tests. A blood test determined Covarrubias had a .26 percent blood alcohol content. The judgment is modified.

In April 2007, a citizen informant advised the Fresno County Sheriffs Department of a possible marijuana garden in the Squaw Valley area by a residence where appellant, John Alfred Kroeger, lived. Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. The judgment is affirmed.

On May 13, 2006, J.Y. and J.A. were walking down the street when a car stopped and the occupants asked them if they banged. J.Y. said he did not and the occupants began calling him a scrap and challenging him to fight. As J.Y and J.A began walking away, the front seat passenger, appellant Cesar Hernandez Aleman, yelled Norte and began shooting out of a window with a semiautomatic handgun, hitting J.Y. in the back and J.A. on the leg. The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment that corrects the above-noted error in Alemans award of conduct credit and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

David S. appeals from the denial of his petition (Fam. Code, 7820, 7822, subd. (a)) to terminate the parental rights of Marylou A., his childrens mother. In the trial court, David alleged Marylou left the children in Davids exclusive custody for a period exceeding one year without provision for their support and any communication or contact and did so with the intent to abandon the children. Under these circumstances, Court hereby dismiss this appeal.

On June 21, 2004, appellant was sentenced to three years in prison after being convicted pursuant to a plea of 1 count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. On or around June 2, 2008, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the June 21, 2004, judgment. On June 11, 2008, this court issued an order directing appellant to address the timeliness of the June 21, 2004, notice of appeal. On June 26, 2008, appellant filed a response to this courts June 11, 2008, order. Appellant admitted that the notice of appeal was not timely filed but stated that the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that his appointed counsel did not explain to him what was taking place in the courtroom or inform him of his right to appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

On June 21, 2004, appellant was sentenced to three years in prison after being convicted pursuant to a plea of 1 count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. On or around June 2, 2008, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the June 21, 2004, judgment. On June 11, 2008, this court issued an order directing appellant to address the timeliness of the June 21, 2004, notice of appeal. On June 26, 2008, appellant filed a response to this courts June 11, 2008, order. Appellant admitted that the notice of appeal was not timely filed but stated that the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that his appointed counsel did not explain to him what was taking place in the courtroom or inform him of his right to appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Mimi L. Barker appeals from the judgment in this dissolution proceeding which, among other things, awarded permanent custody of her daughter, Amanda, to her former husband, Marvin Barker.[1] While this dissolution proceeding was pending, Mimi filed a federal court action against Marvin, his attorney, and a bench officer, seeking a declaration that a temporary custody order violated her civil rights. That action was dismissed by the federal court for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, Mimi contends: (1) the permanent custody order was an abuse of discretion; (2) bias on the part of the trial court deprived her of a fair trial on custody; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying her a continuance when her trial attorney, Peter C. Lomtevas, appearing pro hac vice, stopped coming to trial; and (4) the trial court erred by awarding Marvin attorney fees that included the fees he incurred in defending the federal court action. Court conclude the custody issues are moot because Amanda is now an adult, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Marvin attorney fees for the federal court action.