CA Unpub Decisions

By petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, it was alleged that appellant Rafael M. had committed the following criminal offenses: possession of a firearm by a minor, and possession of a controlled substance (Pen. Code, 12101; Health & Saf. Code, 11377). Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations true. The juvenile court ordered Rafael home on probation, with a maximum confinement time of three years. He now appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts findings.
The judgment is affirmed.

Omar S., a minor, appeals from the order of the juvenile court declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602)[1]based on the finding that he had committed a robbery. (Pen. Code, 211.) The trial court ordered appellant home on probation. In this appeal he contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he committed a robbery and (2) the juvenile court erroneously specified a maximum term of confinement. Court hold that substantial evidence supports the trial courts ruling and therefore affirm the order of wardship. Court agree with the second contention and therefore strike the maximum term of confinement from the order.

The trial court granted a request by the Public Utilities Commission to appoint a receiver for a small water company. Years later, it granted the receivers application for further instructions to refine the scope of his duties and powers. Orville A. Figgs, the owner and former operator of the water company, appeals from that order.
Court find no error in the courts order and affirm.

Defendants Nzoto Gisele Muniangi (Mother) and Diangitukulu Diambu (Father) were tried in a joint trial before separate juries and found guilty of offenses committed against their seven-year-old son B. Father was found guilty as charged of three counts of felony false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236, 237, subd. (a); Cts. 1, 3, 4)[1]and three counts of felony child abuse. ( 273a, subd. (a); Cts. 2, 5, 6.) Mother was charged with the same crimes and found guilty of two counts of false imprisonment ( 236, Cts. 1, 4) and three counts of felony child abuse. ( 273a, subd. (a); Cts. 2, 5, 6.) The trial court placed Mother on five years formal probation conditioned on her serving 364 days in the county jail and sentenced Father to an aggregate prison term of six years eight months. As modified, Court shall affirm the judgments of conviction.

Defendant Steven M. Sanchez was convicted by a jury of transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), possession of cocaine base for sale (id., 11351.5), misdemeanor child endangerment (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (b)), and possession of a firearm by a felon (id., 12021, subd. (a)). He was also found to have been armed with a firearm in connection with the possession for sale charge (id., 12022, subd. (c)) and to have been convicted on two prior occasions of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to an aggregate, unstayed term in state prison of 14 years eight months.

Plaintiff Sharon Elizabeth Viramontes sued defendant Pfizer, Inc., alleging, as relevant to this appeal, that defendants product, Celebrex, caused a rash. The trial court granted summary judgment because there was no competent medical expert opinion that the product caused the alleged side effect. On appeal, plaintiff asserts there was such evidence. Court affirm because (1) plaintiff forfeited the argument she attempts to make on appeal and (2), in any event, there is insufficient evidence of causation.

A jury convicted defendant Kelly Rose Clayton of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a))[1]and found true an allegation that she was armed with a firearm during the commission of that offense ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in state prison, but suspended execution of sentence, and placed her on five years of formal probation subject to certain terms and conditions, including that she: (1) not be in places where narcotics and/or dangerous drugs are present; (2) not remain in any building or vehicle where any person has [a dangerous or deadly weapon], nor remain in the presence of any armed person; and (3) serve 283 days in county jail.To one additional day of presentence custody credit.

A jury found defendant Mario Lamont Drayton guilty of three counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459),[1]three counts of conspiracy ( 182, subd. (a)(1)), one count of possession of a forged instrument ( 475, subd. (b)), and one count of resisting or obstructing a peace officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to state prison for an aggregate term of nine years eight months. Defendant appeals, contending that Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2006-2007) (Aug. 2006 rev.) CALCRIM No. 220 defining reasonable doubt improperly conveyed that standard as set forth in section 1096, and therefore deprived him of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Court shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Christopher Anthony Marulli pleaded guilty to one count of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a))[1]and admitted serving a prior prison term for a felony offense ( 667.5, subd. (b)). He was granted probation. On April 19, 2007, he was found to have violated the terms of his probation. Sentenced to an aggregate term of four years in state prison, defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in: (1) revoking probation and (2) failing to grant him additional custody credits of 10 days. Finding merit only in the latter contention, Court shall modify the judgment to award the additional credit and, as modified, affirm it.

Defendant Justo David Rivera entered a plea of guilty to an added count of sexual battery, a felony (Pen. Code, 243.4, subd. (a))[1]and the remaining counts (forcible rape and elder abuse) were dismissed. The court sentenced defendant to state prison for the midterm of three years.
Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erroneously imposed the sex offender fine or, in the alternative, counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object. Court strike the sex offender fine as erroneously imposed in view of the trial courts finding that defendant had no ability to pay.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Appellant, the mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the courts finding that the minor was adoptable. She also maintains the court made numerous errors in applying the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) Court affirm.

A.S. (appellant), the mother of L.G. (the minor), appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating appellants parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395; further unspecified section references are to this code.) Appellant contends the order must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to support the courts finding it was likely the minor would be adopted. Appellant also claims the court erred by terminating her parental rights in the absence of evidence that the minors prospective adoptive parent had been approved for adoption. Court affirm the order terminating appellants parental rights.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.