CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Hillary Westfall of first degree murder, and found she personally and intentionally discharged a firearm. (Pen. Code 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d), respectively.) Sentenced to a prison term of 50 years to life, defendant argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction and firearm finding, and that the trial court failed to independently review the evidence on her new trial motion. court shall affirm.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale (case No. 04CR5855) and failing to appear (case No. 04CR6293), and admitted having a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of five years and four months in state prison. Having obtained a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals. He contends the sentence violated the plea agreement, the court failed to exercise its discretion at sentencing, he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and there is an error in the abstract of judgment. Court vacate the sentence, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
Court provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

In exchange for a stipulated sentence of three years and the dismissal of other charges, defendant John Jeremy Cheso pleaded no contest to stalking in violation of Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (c)(1). In addition to the three-year prison term, the court imposed restitution fines of $600 in accordance with each of Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. The judgment is affirmed.

Marie Alicia Diez de Bonilla appeals a family court order setting a payment schedule for James Tony Alvarez, her former husband, of $350 per month toward spousal support arrearages of $149,250 and requiring her to obtain court approval for further efforts to satisfy the arrearages. Diez de Bonilla contends that the payment schedule is so low that the arrearages will never be satisfied, violating the well-established principle that a final support order may not be modified retroactively. Diez de Bonilla also contends that the family court lacked authority to condition her efforts to enforce the outstanding support order against later discovered assets on the court's prior approval. As discussed below, we conclude the family court acted within its authority in setting a payment schedule based on Diez de Bonilla's former husband's ability to pay, but erred in conditioning additional enforcement efforts on prior court approval. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Parties to bear their own costs on appeal.

Torren Salazar McNeiece (Salazar) appeals a judgment following his jury conviction on several counts involving burglary and stolen property. On appeal, he contends the trial court prejudicially erred by not instructing sua sponte that his out-of-court oral statements should be viewed with caution. Salazar timely filed a notice of appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.

Daniel P. and Cheryl P., the parents of Nicholas P., appeal the judgment terminating their parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 366.26. Daniel and Cheryl contend that the juvenile court erred by not applying the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i), formerly 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)). Daniel also contends there was insufficient evidence that Nicholas was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time.
The judgment is affirmed.

Maria R. petitions for writ review of juvenile court orders terminating her reunification services regarding her daughter, Claudia G., and referring the matter to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. She contends the court erred because reasonable services were not provided to her and she participated regularly and made substantive progress in treatment. Court deny the petition.

Joseph H. appeals the findings and orders entered at the permanency planning hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. The appeal is dismissed.

Plaintiff and appellant Michael Price appeals after the trial court granted the motion of defendant and respondent Vernon Gingrich to set aside the judgment as to an award of punitive damages. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in setting aside the punitive damages award, as the motion was untimely and failed to demonstrate a proper ground for relief. Court reverse.

On the morning of May 23, 2006, Riverside County Sheriffs Deputy Ronald White received a call to respond to the EZ Lube oil change store in Moreno Valley regarding a report of domestic violence. It had been reported that the victim had been stabbed. Deputy White arrived to find Estella Lancaster at the EZ Lube; defendant was found nearby. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of attempted criminal threats (Pen. Code, 664, 422),[1]destruction of telephone lines ( 591), vandalism over $400 ( 594, subd. (b)), and misdemeanor spousal battery ( 243, subd.(e)(1)). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a deadly and/or dangerous weapon during the commission of the misdemeanor spousal battery and attempted terrorist threats. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court found true at a bifurcated proceeding that defendant had served a prior prison term. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to 2 years 8 months in state prison. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and requested that he be appointed counsel. Court modify the sentence by imposing the mandatory parole revocation fine in the amount of $200, imposition of which is stayed pending successful completion of parole, pursuant to section 1202.45. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment and the minute order to include the $200 restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and the $200 parole revocation fine as herein indicated. A copy of the modified abstract of judgment shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

J.M. (Father) and C.M. (Mother) appeal from the juvenile courts order terminating their parental rights to two-year-old A.M. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] On appeal, Father claims (1) the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to maintain the sibling relationship pursuant to section 16002; (2) the court erred in failing to order sibling visitation when terminating parental rights; and (3) minors counsel had an actual conflict of interest and therefore should have been removed. Mother contends (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition; (2) DPSS failed to follow section 16002 and preserve and maintain the sibling relationship; and (3) the disentitlement doctrine applies to reverse the judgment terminating parental rights. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

On January 3, 2007, about 12:30 p.m., San Bernardino County Sheriff deputies saw defendant carrying custom rims from an apartment complex to a minivan. The deputies contacted defendant and asked him for identification. Defendant identified himself and admitted that he was on active parole. While the deputies confirmed defendant was on active parole and explained to defendant why they had stopped him, defendant became agitated and took a step toward one of the deputies. The deputies handcuffed defendant and walked him to the patrol car. As they walked, defendant turned over his shoulder and began yelling, Amber, Amber. Defendant was immediately sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement with credit for time served. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioners Denise M. (Mother) and Joe M. (Father) are the parents of eight-year-old J.M. The parents filed writ petitions pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging an order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]permanency planning hearing as to the child. Mother contends that (1) the juvenile court erred in finding that she had been provided with reasonable reunification services, and (2) the juvenile court erred in suspending her visitation with her daughter. Father contends (1) reasonable services were not offered to him, and (2) that services should have been extended. For the reasons provided below, Court reject the parents challenges and deny their petitions.