CA Unpub Decisions

Devon W., a minor, pleaded no contest to an allegation of assault with a firearm, based on his firing three shots from a semiautomatic handgun at a moving vehicle. After exhibiting erratic behavior during a placement at a group home, which ended when he ran away from the home, appellant was committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). Appellant challenges this commitment, contending that there was no evidence that commitment to DJF will be of probable benefit to him. Court affirm.

The juvenile court adjudicated N.J., (the minor) a continued ward of the court, in part because it found he possessed an assault weapon in violation of Penal Code section 12280, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 12280(b)).[1] On appeal, the minors sole contention is that there is insufficient evidence to establish he knew or should have known the firearm was an assault weapon under section 12280(b). Court affirm.

Defendant Douglas Raymond Jurling appeals his conviction by court trial of felony annoying and molesting a child under age 18. (Pen. Code, 647.6, subd. (a).) His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior sexual misconduct. Court reject the contention and affirm.

Heather H., the mother of Emma H., petitions under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 to vacate the trial courts order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the court abused its discretion by finding that return of Emma to her custody would risk the childs physical or emotional detriment and that reasonable reunification services were provided. Court deny the petition on its merits.

Fortino Perez owned the house where he and his wife had raised their family and where he had lived for about 40 years. Two months before his 90th birthday, he executed a grant deed conveying the house to his neighbor. Following Mr. Perezs death, his children learned about the deed and filed this action to cancel it, alleging the deed was obtained by undue influence and fraud. The children prevailed and the neighbor appeals. Court affirm.

David Vincent Osby appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, count 1)[1]and carjacking ( 215, subd. (a), count 2). The trial court found to be true the allegation that he had suffered one prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). It sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of six years. Defendant contends that (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his Faretta motion, violating his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, and (2) the abstract of judgment should be ordered corrected to properly reflect his convictions and sentence.

The juvenile court sustained a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and found true the allegation that minor and appellant D.A. committed one count of second degree robbery. On appeal, D.A. contends there is insufficient evidence to support the true finding on the robbery count because the witnesses out-of-court identifications resulted from a suggestive show-up procedure. He also contends that certain probation conditions should be modified. We agree that certain conditions of probation should be modified, but Court otherwise affirm the judgment.

Danielle B. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that she committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211). She was placed on probation in the home of her parents and a theoretical maximum term of confinement was set at five years. She contends the finding she committed a robbery is not supported by substantial evidence, that use of the upper term of five years as the theoretical maximum period of confinement violates her rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, that a condition of probation is unconstitutionally vague and that the maximum term of confinement of five years should not remain because she was placed home on probation. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court strike the maximum term of confinement, modify the condition of probation and in all other respects affirm the order of wardship.

Marlon E. Siguenza was convicted of one count of second degree murder with a true finding on an allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).) He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 40 years to life. Siguenza appeals, claiming evidentiary error and prosecutorial misconduct. Court affirm.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Susan H. (mother) to Rudy H. (Rudy), Jasmin O. (Jasmin) and Jesse C. (Jesse) (collectively the minors). Mother appeals the order based on a purported paucity of substantial evidence showing that the minors are adoptable. Alternatively, mother argues that reversal is required because the attorney who represented the minors also represented their siblingsDarlene H. (Darlene) and Johnny A. (Johnny)and the five children had competing interests, which created a conflict.
Court find no error and affirm.

William Y., a ward of the court for violating Penal Code section 243.4, subdivision (a), sexual battery, was committed to what is now the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, formerly known as the California Youth Authority. On appeal, he contends the commitment was an abuse of the juvenile courts discretion because no evidence shows that less restrictive alternatives were inappropriate, and legislation enacted after his commitment requires us to vacate the order and remand for a new disposition hearing. Court reject the claims and affirm the order of commitment.

Defendant Tony Wilson appeals from his convictions for a number of drug offenses and enhancements, for having prior serious felonies, and for having served prior prison terms. Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the denial of his motion to suppress, and his confession was involuntary and should not have been admitted. Court affirm the judgment in part, but remand with directions regarding certain fees and assessments.

Defendant Harpal Singh Ahluwalia was convicted by a jury of two counts of solicitation to commit murder (separate victims) and sentenced to nine years in prison the upper term of nine years on count 1 and a concurrent term of six years on count 2.[1] He appealed and in an opinion filed July 5, 2005, Court affirmed the judgment.

Defendants Brandon and Allison Ross built a fence to surround their residential property, but placed it partially on an access easement that plaintiff Norman Roberts owns, and partially on a contiguous public right-of-way. The Rosses have no legal or equitable interest in Roberts's easement, yet they refused his request that they remove the encroachment. They now contend the trial court erred by granting him summary judgment on his action against them for quiet title, trespass, ejectment, nuisance and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Rosses challenge the court's ruling on all counts but the quiet title count, and challenge evidentiary rulings and an item in the cost award. Court affirm the judgment.