CA Unpub Decisions

Lisa R. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.

In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny her requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Lisa R.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.
The appeal is dismissed.

A jury convicted defendant Jose Hernandez Diaz of two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 211) relating to separate incidents against different victims, with separate weapon use enhancements. He appeals from the convictions on the ground the trial court improperly joined the two counts, and challenges the courts sentencing decision not to exercise its discretion to strike one of his prior serious felony convictions (Strikes). Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for four counts of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a);[1]counts 1 through 4) and one count of participation in a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (a); count 5). The jury also found true, as to counts 1 through 4, that the offenses were committed for the benefit of and in connection with a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)); and defendant was either a principal or an aider and abettor in the personal and intentional discharge of a firearm during the commission of the offenses ( 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). The jury found not true the allegations as to counts 1 through 4 that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (GBI). The trial court sentenced defendant to four consecutive life terms, plus 100 years to life. Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and enhancements and the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct on assault, self-defense, and the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter.
We conclude there was no reversible error, either individually or cumulatively, and affirm the judgment.

Melody L. is the paternal grandmother of Isaac L., the subject of this dependency proceeding. She appeals from the summary denial of her changed circumstances petition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388.) Isaac had been placed at birth with a foster family that wanted to adopt him. After parental rights were terminated, Melody asked that Isaac be removed from that placement and placed with her and his two older siblings instead. Court hold that Melody failed to adequately allege either that there were changed circumstances since the entry of the relevant previous order or that granting her request would be in Isaacs best interest. Hence, Court affirm.

Mother appeals from juvenile court orders denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1]petition and terminating her parental rights to her two and one-half-year-old daughter, Mia. Father joins in mothers appeal and seeks reversal of termination of his parental rights in the event mother prevails on her appeal. Mother contends the juvenile court failed to hold a proper evidentiary hearing on her section 388 petition and seeks remand to allow a full and fair hearing on her section 388 petition.
Court conclude the trial court conducted a proper evidentiary hearing on mothers section 388 petition and mother forfeited any objection on appeal to the hearing by failing to object during the hearing. Court thus affirm the juvenile court orders denying the section 388 petition and terminating parental rights.

Donna C. (mother[1]) appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights as to her one-year-old daughter, Stephanie H. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] 366.26.) Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the adoptability finding because the Department of Childrens Services (DCS or department) did not adequately evaluate the nature and quality of mothers relationship with mother. Court find no error and affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent, Integrated Grain & Milling Company, on its claim for payment for chicken feed it sold and delivered to defendants and appellants, David Rashidian and Mahshid Jazayeri Rashidian. Appellants also appeal from the order awarding respondent attorney fees. Court affirm.

Following a jury trial, Jimmy Mendez Alvarado, Sr. (appellant), was convicted of annoying or molesting a child of 14 or 15 years of age (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (c)(1)), committing an act of oral copulation on an unconscious person (id., 288a, subd. (f)), and committing an act of oral copulation on a person under the age of 16 (id., 288a, subd. (b)(2)). The trial court placed appellant on probation for a four-year term and suspended a prison sentence. The trial court ordered appellant to serve 365 days in county jail. Appellant claims there is insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. Court disagree and affirm.

Appellant was convicted of (1) first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459), (2) stalking with a prior stalking conviction (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (b)), (3) threatening bodily injury (Pen. Code, 422), and (4) brandishing a weapon (Pen. Code, 417, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of appellants prior acts of stalking and domestic violence, contrary to the provisions of Evidence Code sections 352 and 1101; the court instructed the jury in the language of Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2007-2008), CALCRIM No. 852 (CALCRIM) in violation of his constitutional rights; the conviction on count 3 was not supported by sufficient evidence; and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in her closing argument. Court affirm.

Defendant Refugio Angel Cedillo was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale, transportation of methamphetamine, and driving without a valid drivers license. On appeal, he contends (1) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance at the sentencing hearing by making no attempt to persuade the court to dismiss (strike) any of defendants prior drug conviction enhancements, and (2) the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove the out-on-bail enhancement. Court affirm.

Decedent Casand Dewey drowned while swimming in Lake Isabella. His mother and brother, Colette Craan and Christian Dewey (plaintiffs), sued the County of Kern (county) for wrongful death. After several pleading attempts, the trial court sustained countys demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend. In doing so, the trial court took judicial notice that Lake Isabella was owned and controlled by the federal government, not by county. Additionally, the trial court concluded that even if county potentially owned or controlled the lake, statutory immunity under Government Code section 831.2 regarding injury caused by a natural condition of unimproved property would be applicable. The plaintiffs appeal from the resulting judgment of dismissal. Court hold that county was immune from suit under section 831.2 and therefore affirm the judgment.

Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her sons T. and F. Court will deny the petition.

Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her sons T. and F. Court will deny the petition.

Plaintiff Optimal Water, Inc. appeals from a judgment awarding attorney fees and nonstatutory costs under Corporations Code section 317, subdivision (d) (all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated) in favor of defendant Eric R. Robbins. Section 317 provides for the indemnification of agents of corporations in legal proceedings. Optimal argues that former employee Robbinss conduct precludes him from being indemnified for fees and costs incurred in successfully defending a suit instituted by Optimal charging various torts he allegedly committed during his employment. Robbins argues that because he was an agent of Optimal and was successful on the merits, he is entitled to indemnity. Court bagree and affirm the judgment.