CA Unpub Decisions

The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information alleging defendant committed the offenses of sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)[1]), possession for sale of cocaine base ( 11351.5), and possession of marijuana for sale ( 11359). As to all offenses, the information alleged that defendant suffered three prior convictions within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (a), and nine convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On appeal, defendants appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. Court have reviewed the record and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Mary Beth Ferrel (wife) and respondent Ernest Wayne Ferrel (husband) dissolved their marriage. They entered into a stipulated judgment concerning property division which was incorporated into their judgment of dissolution.
The parties do not ask us to review the trial court's ruling concerning the characterization of the asset. Rather, the sole issue on appeal is whether the brokerage account is an "omitted" asset or an "adjudicated" asset. Wife claims that the account was an omitted asset, thus it fell outside the provisions of the stipulated judgment, and should not have been heard by the trial court. She argues that that the judgment should be vacated and the matter remanded with directions that it proceed before the Judge Pro Tem. Husband asserts the account was an adjudicated asset, thus it was properly before the trial court. Court affirm.

Appellant Dawn G. (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over Alexandria P. (born 1/91) and Aaron P. (born 12/96), removing Aaron from her custody, granting Robert P. (father) sole legal and physical custody of Aaron, and terminating jurisdiction.
Court affirm the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders. Dependency jurisdiction was proper in this case, and substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Aaron removed from mothers custody, denying her reunification services, and terminating jurisdiction.

Robert Smith was convicted by jury of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd.(a)) and sentenced to six years state prison after admitting a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b) (i); 1170.12, subds. (a) (d)). He appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on juror misconduct. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Hans F. Schwing appeals from an order denying his motion to modify/terminate spousal support based on the allegation that his ex-wife/respondent, Mary C. Schwing, is living with a female person. Appellant claimed that Family Code section 4323, a burden-shifting presumption on the need for support, applied but failed to make a threshold showing of cohabitation to trigger the presumption. Because this is a judgment roll appeal, we presume that ample evidence was presented to support the judgment and affirm. (See 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, 354, p. 402; Ehrler v. Ehler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) Court also point out that the record on appeal, designated by appellant, does not include the moving or responsive papers.

Claudia L. (mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights over two of her daughters, nine-year-old Rosemary P. and seven-year-old Destiny P. Mother contends that the court erred in terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]because the beneficial sibling relationship exception, found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), should apply.[2] Mother further contends that her daughters were provided ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest on the part of their shared lawyer. Court affirm the order of the juvenile court.

Pamela S. seeks writ relief (Welf. & Inst. Code 366.26, subd. (l);[1]Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile courts order, made at the conclusion of the statutory time limit for reunification ( 366.22), terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider selection and implementation of a permanent plan for her 10-year-old daughter Samantha S. Court deny the petition.

Appellant and judgment creditor Stephen Lipworth tried to enforce a judgment against respondent Raj Singh by obtaining a court order for the sale of a residence owned by respondent Singh. To fend off a judicial finding that he owned the residence, respondent in propria persona played an identity shell game, asserting that one Kaus Singh, who never appeared in court and for whose existence respondent produced no credible evidence, was the true owner. After the trial court determined that Kaus Singh was merely respondents alias, appellant obtained the court order he sought.
We cannot simply reinstate the property-sale order, however. The family courts award of the property to Karen Singh, even if it resulted from a fraud on that court, has made her an indispensable party to this litigation. She has never been named as a party, and neither appellant nor respondent can represent her interests. Therefore, Court remand with directions that appellant join her as a party, unless the court determines that she is not subject to joinder. (Code Civ. Proc., 389 (section 389).)

Defendants Marco Anthony Talamantes and Tonino Ambriz appeal from judgments of conviction after a jury found them each guilty of two counts of unlawful taking of a vehicle and one count of carjacking. For each defendant, the trial court stayed sentence on one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle under Penal Code section 654.
On appeal, defendants contend: (1) there was no substantial evidence to prove defendant Ambriz guilty of the first charge of unlawful taking of a vehicle; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to allow evidence that the alleged victims were illegal aliens; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence for the convictions. Court find no merit in the second and third claims, but reverse the first conviction of unlawful taking of a vehicle for defendant Ambriz.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have reviewed the record as required by Wende, and have found an error in sentencing which requires us to remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Richard Dean Gomez entered negotiated guilty pleas to kidnapping (Pen. Code, 207, subd. (a); further statutory references are to the Penal Code) and dissuading a witness ( 136.1, subd. (c)(3)). Gomez further admitted he had two prior serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Under the plea bargain, the prosecution dismissed five felony counts, including two counts of corporal injury to a spouse, making a criminal threat and attempted robbery. The parties stipulated to a 22-year prison term. The trial court denied Gomez's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to 22 years in prison in accordance with the plea bargain. Gomez did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

Adriana H. appeals a judgment terminating parental rights to her daughter, April A., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Adriana contends the court erred when it found that April was likely to be adopted and the beneficial parent-child exception did not apply to preclude termination of parental rights. Court affirm.

Zonna May Pennell petitioned the trial court for a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6; Phillip L. Green opposed the petition without filing a cross-complaint. At the close of proceedings, the trial court issued mutual restraining orders. Pennell claims that the trial court erred in granting a restraining order against her. Court agree and reverse the order.