CA Unpub Decisions

On May 20, 2008, appellant filed a notice of appeal from a March 20, 2008, order denying an evidentiary hearing and injunctive relief.
In an order filed June 2, 2008, this court issued an order directing appellant to address the appealability of the March 20, 2008, order. In his response, appellant fails to provide legal authority for his contention that the trial courts order, which appears to have been filed regarding appellants pending petition for writ of habeas corpus, is an appealable order. The appeal is dismissed.

In April 2002, defendant Genevieve Wall evicted plaintiffs Sandra and Michael Shanks from a three-acre property she owned in Perris, California. At the time of the eviction, plaintiffs maintained a flock of parrots and other exotic birds they bred and cared for on the premises. With adequate legal notice, Wall warned plaintiffs to remove their personal property within 15 days, on condition they pay reasonable storage costs, or she would sell their personal property at a public sale.

Manuel Frias II was convicted of three robberies and a carjacking, all with gun enhancements. His appeal concerns only the carjacking conviction. The sole evidence linking Frias to the crime was the identification of Frias in a photographic lineup by the victim, Ye Yuan, and Frias contends this evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Frias asks this court to hold all nighttime, stressful, and cross-racial eyewitness identifications made by a victim are insufficient to support a conviction. While we recognize there can be inaccuracies and complications associated with eyewitness testimony, we find no basis to hold as a matter of law all such eyewitness identifications are insufficient. The jury had the opportunity to weigh and consider the many factors affecting Yuans identification and reasonably chose to believe his testimony. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant Alvaro Carrillo Gomez of 20 counts of sexual misconduct involving his two nieces, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. The court sentenced him to a total of 109 years. He raises two issues in his appeal: the court erred in admitting evidence of other crimes committed against the victims sister and count six is barred by limitations. The Attorney General concedes the latter and Court reverse as to that count and order a correction of the abstract of judgment. The admission of evidence of other sexual crimes was authorized by statute and Court affirm the judgment as modified.

The court found Joseph S. (the minor), committed battery against two of his high school classmates, declared him a ward of the court, and placed him on probation with the condition he attend some other high school. Defendant contends this probation condition unreasonably violates his constitutional rights and was wrongly imposed without a social study. His first claim lacks merit; his second was waived. Court affirm.

David M. (father) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights over his son, Z., who is now four and one-half years old. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26 [providing for termination]; all further undesignated section references are to this code.) Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying, after a full evidentiary hearing, his modification petition seeking supervised custody of Z. and his half sister, D. D. or, in the alternative, increased visitation. ( 388.) Father also argues the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the benefit exception ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i) [former 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)]) to avoid terminating his parental rights. Finding no basis to overturn the trial courts conclusions, we affirm the order denying fathers modification petition and terminating his parental rights.
The juvenile courts order denying fathers modification petition and terminating parental rights is affirmed.

Julie S. appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her four-year-old son, James H., at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]hearing (permanency hearing). Jamess father is not a party to this appeal. Julie argues the juvenile court should have applied the benefit exception to termination of parental rights ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

On July 18, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against Terry Troglin under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on February 11, 2004, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

On July 18, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against Dean Pacini under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on July 17, 1997, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

On July 18, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against Christopher Hubbart under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on July 29, 1997, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

A petition was filed, alleging that Albert C., a minor (16 years old at the time of the jurisdictional hearing), came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The petition alleged that on September 14, 2007,[1] the minor violated Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1)[2] (assault with a deadly weapon), a felony, and section 186.22, subdivision (a) (street terrorism [hereafter, 186.22(a)]). The petition also contained the allegations that he committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1) [hereafter, 186.22(b)(1)); inflicted great bodily injury during the assault ( 12022.7, subd. (a)); and violated the terms of a prior court order (Welf. & Inst. Code, 777, subd. (a)(1)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained the petition and ordered that the minor be placed in a residential facility.
The minor contends on appeal that the street terrorism count and the gang enhancement cannot be sustained because there was insufficient evidence that one of the primary activities of the gang which allegedly benefited from the minors crimes was the commission of one or more specified felonies; such evidence was required to establish the existence of a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (f) (hereafter, 186.22(f)). We conclude that there was sufficient evidence supporting a finding of a criminal street gang under that statute. Court therefore will affirm the judgment.

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of three of six counts charged in an information, namely, possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)),[1]carrying a loaded firearm in public after having a prior violation ( 12031, subd. (a)(1)), and assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true an enhancement charging personal use of a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)). Later, the court found that appellant had suffered two prior drug-related felony convictions in Alameda County.
The court sentenced appellant to the upper term of four years on the assault with a deadly weapon count (count 6) plus the upper term of 10 years for the personal use of a firearm enhancement charged as to that count.[2] Pursuant to section 654, it stayed the sentence on the remaining two counts on which appellant was found guilty. Appellant thus received a total prison sentence of 14 years. Appellant appeals from that sentence, claiming it is inconsistent with the law as set forth in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham). Court disagree and hence affirm.

Jon Michael Moore appeals from a judgment upon his plea of guilty to three counts of burglary, seven counts of issuing checks with insufficient funds, and one count of grand theft. He contends the trial courts imposition of consecutive terms is inconsistent with the California Rules of Court. Court affirm.

This is an appeal in a case involving claims of race and disability discrimination, defamation and invasion of privacy, among others. Appellant Claudia Carter sued her employer, the San Francisco Unified School District, and Julianne Wurm, an instructional reform facilitator at Fairmount Elementary School where Carter had taught for over 15 years (collectively, respondents), after she was placed in a remedial program designed to improve teaching skills. The trial court entered judgment in favor of respondents after granting their motions for summary adjudication and for summary judgment. Court affirm.