CA Unpub Decisions

Christopher Macias pled guilty to one count of false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, 236, 237(a)), admitted he committed the crime for the benefit of a gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and admitted a prior strike conviction ( 667 (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). He stipulated to a nine year prison term. The court sentenced Macias to nine years in prison. Macias did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. The judgment is affirmed.

M.P. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights over J.B. and Raven P. M.P. contends the juvenile court erred by finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) did not apply and by declining to apply the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E)). She also contends the children's trial counsel was ineffective. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Jaime Zavala Garcia appeals following a jury trial arguing the trial court erred by failing to strike an unused firearm enhancement. Court affirm.

Defendant pled no contest to one count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1]in return for a sentence lid of the low term of two years. Additionally, the plea specified that the court could, but was not obligated to, consider the time defendant had served in custody in Arizona on another case when considering the award of custody credits in the instant matter. The court declined defendants request for custody credits for his time spent incarcerated in Arizona. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in refusing to award him credits based on his custody in Arizona because it was attributable to the proceeding for which he was convicted in the current matter. We find that defendant was not placed in custody in Arizona for reasons sufficiently related to or attributable to his burglary conviction; therefore, Court affirm the courts award of custody credits.

Lynn P. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, K.B., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Her sole contention is that the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the sibling relationship exception set forth in former subdivision (c)(1)(E) of section 366.26. court disagree and affirm.

The court found defendant in violation of a nondrug-related condition of his Proposition 36 probation, revoked his probation, and imposed the three-year suspended prison term specified in his plea agreement. Defendant appeals, contending the matter must be remanded because the court was unaware of its discretion to reinstate Proposition 36 probation. We find that, to the extent the court did not understand its discretion, any error was harmless. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Appellant Miguel V. contends he was denied effective representation of counsel because counsel had a conflict, warranting reversal of the judgment. He also contends the juvenile court failed to determine whether his offense, violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), was a felony or misdemeanor. Court disagree and will affirm in all respects.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (the DMV) appeals from a judgment granting respondent Richard Bussard Sr.s petition for writ of mandate. The writ directed the DMV to set aside its suspension of respondents drivers license for driving with blood-alcohol content in excess of 0.08 percent. In granting the writ, the trial court reasoned that the hearing officer improperly granted a continuance of the administrative hearing without a showing of good cause by the DMV. On appeal, the DMV contends the continuance was not an abuse of discretion and respondent was not prejudiced thereby, thus the trial court erred in granting the writ. Court agree with the DMV. Consequently, we reverse the trial courts judgment and remand with instructions to deny the writ and reinstate the DMVs suspension order.

Daniel M. (Daniel) appeals from the juvenile courts orders overruling his demurrer to a juvenile dependency petition regarding his son William G. (William) and subsequent jurisdictional and dispositional orders declaring William a dependent pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j), removing him from Daniels custody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c)(1), and granting him reunification services. Court will reverse the jurisdictional findings and dispositional order and remand to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

Martin P. appeals from an order that terminated the juvenile courts jurisdiction and awarded the childrens mother, Melissa H., sole legal and physical custody of the children, G.P. and S.P. Martin argues reversal is required because he did not receive the notice required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21. Court conclude that if there was error, an issue Court do not decide, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Court affirm the order of the juvenile court.

Margaret and Ralph Morgan separately appeal various property division rulings of the trial court, and Ralph challenges an attorney fee award and a separate order requiring the parties to sell jointly owned real property to a third party. Finally, Court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Margaret attorney fees, and in authorizing the court clerk to execute the property sales agreement. Accordingly, Court affirm the trial courts order regarding sale of the property, but reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellant Susan Herron (Susan) appeals from a postjudgment order directing her to pay fees and costs incurred by appointed counsel for her minor daughter. She contends the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order because (1) the trial judge was disqualified for bias, and (2) she lacked notice of the hearing on the fee request. Susan failed to preserve these claims below. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Aaron Lee Blanchette appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of second degree vehicular burglary and receiving stolen property. Blanchette argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel, there were instructional errors, and the trial court abused its discretion when it denied him probation. Alternatively, in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Blanchette contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel failed to introduce potentially exonerating evidence. Court ordered consolidation of the petition with the appeal. None of his contentions have merit, and we affirm the judgment. Court deny the petition.