CA Unpub Decisions

The court readjudged appellant, Daniel V., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) after Daniel admitted allegations charging him with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211). On appeal, Daniel contends: 1) the court abused its discretion when it committed him to the youth facility program; 2) the court erred when it ordered him to attend school as a condition of probation; and 3) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

On April 25, 2007, the Tulare County juvenile court accepted transfer of the wardship of appellant, Johnny S., from a wardship in Sutter County to one in Tulare County. A petition alleging that Johnny committed felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a))[1]was found true in Sutter County on February 16, 2006. On May 21, 2007, the juvenile court conducted a review hearing regarding Johnnys case plan. The judgment is affirmed.

On July 19, 2007, without trial and after stating that Ronald Rose previously had been found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP), the superior court ordered Ronald Rose to remain committed as an SVP for an indeterminate term under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.). The court determined that the new law, which now provides for an indeterminate term of commitment ( 6604, 6604.1), retroactively applied to his original commitment. On appeal, appellant Rose contends that the new law was not intended to apply retroactively and also challenges the commitment on numerous constitutional and other grounds. The July 19, 2007 order requiring appellant to remain committed as an SVP for an indeterminate term is reversed.

This case returns to us for reconsideration in light of People v. Alford(2007) 42 Cal.4th 749 (Alford). Maile Carmichael appealed from convictions of possession for sale of methamphetamine, sale of methamphetamine and conspiracy. In our prior opinion (People v. Carmichael (Jan. 9, 2006, A106894), rev. granted May 10, 2006, transferred April 9, 2008), Court struck orders requiring appellant to pay restitution to the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement for buy funds and to pay a court security fee. Following Alford,we now affirm the trial courts imposition of the security fee. The Supreme Courts decision in Alford does not affect our previous resolution of the restitution issue, to which Court adhere.

Brandon Joseph Cardenas appeals from a judgment imposing a previously suspended sentence on his conviction of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and selling methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)). He contends that the trial court erred in imposing a prison sentence because it failed to comply with Penal Code section 1203.2a. The Attorney General concedes the error. Court vacate the prison sentence.

Baychester Shopping Center, Inc., Thomas Iveli, and 406-10-12 Realty Corporation (collectively, Baychester) appeal from the trial courts order upholding respondent San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board of the City and County of San Franciscos (Board) decision finding Baychester liable for rent overpayments charged to tenant Larry Fingerhut by the former landlord and owner of a nine-unit apartment building. Baychester contends that it cannot be held liable for the unlawful rent increases imposed by the former landlord. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

A jury found Robert Alonzo guilty of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder. (Pen. Code, 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a).)[1] The jury also found that Alonzo personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subds. (a), (c) & (d)); that he personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subd. (d)); and that he committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). Court affirm.

Appellant Grant Charles Rhodes was convicted of several felony counts including assault with a firearm upon a peace officer. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (d)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for 14 years. In 2003, we conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the cause with directions to the trial court to conduct an in camera hearing on appellant's motion for in camera review of the personnel records of Deputy Sheriff Crone pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. We ordered the court to grant the requested discovery if the hearing revealed discoverable information bearing on the deputy's honesty which could lead to admissible evidence helpful to appellant in defense of the charge and otherwise to reinstate the original judgment and sentence.
Having reviewed the entire record, Court are satisfied that no other arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Grant Charles Rhodes was convicted of several felony counts including assault with a firearm upon a peace officer. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (d)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for 14 years. In 2003, we conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the cause with directions to the trial court to conduct an in camera hearing on appellant's motion for in camera review of the personnel records of Deputy Sheriff Crone pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. We ordered the court to grant the requested discovery if the hearing revealed discoverable information bearing on the deputy's honesty which could lead to admissible evidence helpful to appellant in defense of the charge and otherwise to reinstate the original judgment and sentence.
Having reviewed the entire record, Court are satisfied that no other arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.

Jose L., a minor, appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1]by reason of his having committed two acts of grand theft person (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c), counts 1 & 2)[2]and making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422, count 3). The juvenile court placed appellant on home probation with a maximum term of confinement of four years four months, imposing as a condition of probation that appellant not receive school grades of F, D, or U. Appellant contends that (1) the findings that he committed two acts of grand theft person must be reversed because they are unsupported by sufficient evidence of an intent to steal, (2) the finding that he made a criminal threat must be reversed because it is unsupported by evidence of sustained fear, (3) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing as a condition of probation that appellant not receive school grades of F, D or U, and (4) the juvenile court erred in setting a maximum term of confinement. Court modify and affirm.

Appellants[1]are the heirs of the late musician and composer Autry De Walt, professionally known as Junior Walker (De Walt), who died in 1995. De Walt authored numerous songs, including 31 songs in the 1960s that are the subject of the parties dispute (the disputed songs). De Walt entered into a series of contracts with respondent Jobete Music Co., Inc. (Jobete). Appellants maintain that the first series of these contracts, known as the 1960s single-song agreements, govern the disputed songs and that these agreements granted to Jobete only the original terms of the copyrights and not the renewal terms. Court agree with Jobete that because the jury determined that the 1960s single-song agreements were replaced by the parties later agreements and appellants admitted that the later agreements did convey renewal copyrights, the jury was never called upon to decide whether the 1960s single song agreements conveyed renewal copyrights. Accordingly, no federal question was raised and the case was properly tried in state court. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

William D. Klug appeals an order of the family law court denying his motion to modify or terminate spousal support, and awarding attorney's fees to Sharon C. Klug. Court affirm.