CA Unpub Decisions

Gabriel Sanchez appeals from his conviction of assault with a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2).[1] He contends that his federal and state constitutional due process rights to fair notice of the charge and to defend against the charge were violated because of the uncertainty of the victims identity in the charging information. Court disagree and affirm.

Robin M. (mother) appeals from the March 26, 2007 order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition without a hearing and ordering legal guardianship as the permanent placement plan for her three children.[1] She contends: (1) the juvenile court erred in denying her a hearing on the petition; (2) the legal guardianship order must be reversed pending a hearing on the section 388 petition; and (3) the visitation order is so vague as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Court affirm.

Following denial of his motions to quash a search warrant and to strike a prior conviction, appellant LaKeith Cornae Crosby pled no contest to one count of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359) and admitted that he suffered a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, 246).[1]The trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison, doubling the mid term of two years pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i).
Appellant contends that the search of his residence and resulting seizure of 13 pounds of marijuana was unlawful because the warrant delegated authority to law enforcement officers to determine whether probable cause existed to search an adjacent residence, because the warrant authorized an overbroad search for evidence of street gang membership, and because the magistrate relied upon information that was derived from an illegal search of a third person, conclusory statements, stale information and incorrect statements about appellant's criminal history in determining whether probable cause existed to support the warrant. Appellant also contends that the court erred when it denied his motion to strike his prior conviction. Court affirm.

A brother sued his sister, alleging that she had wrongfully obtained real property from their mother. A jury agreed that the sister had acted inappropriately and found that the property should be returned to the mothers trust, but did not award any damages to the brother. The trial court entered a judgment on the jurys verdict, and thereafter denied the brothers motions for attorneys fees and for imposition of a constructive trust on other properties owned by the sister. The brother appeals from the post-trial orders. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Cesar Marroquin appeals from his conviction of elder abuse, attempted burning of a structure, vandalism, and criminal threats. His only contention on appeal is that the court erroneously denied his request pursuant to Penal Code section 654 to stay his sentence for vandalism. Court disagree and affirm.

Dominic M., the alleged father of minor S.S., appeals from the dependency court order terminating his parental rights in the child. As set forth below, we affirm that order. Court also asked the parties to brief the issue whether Dominic M. received ineffective assistance from his court-appointed lawyer. Court have decided to treat those briefs as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because any error by trial counsel was not prejudicial, Court deny that petition.

Robert Mario Jimenez appeals from the judgment following his jury trial and conviction of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court granted probation with the condition that he serve 325 days in county jail, with credit for 325 days served. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that the court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 875 (the standard assault with a deadly weapon instruction) and providing an inadequate response to a jury question concerning that instruction. Court affirm.

Maria G. (Mother) and Jorge A. (Father) appeal from August 21, 2007 jurisdiction and dispositional orders declaring their teenage son Jorge G. to be a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (physical abuse), (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support) and removing him from parental custody.[1] We conclude that the juvenile court properly invoked temporary emergency subject matter jurisdiction under Family Code section 3424, subdivision (a). But because of improper service of notice, the jurisdiction and dispositional orders will be reversed and on remand the juvenile court will be directed to vacate the orders and to afford a reasonable time for proper service of the parents in Mexico under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638) (hereinafter the Hague Service Convention).

This is an appeal by the father from an order of the juvenile court terminating jurisdiction over his three sons, whose maternal grandmother was appointed their legal guardian. (The father also appealed from an earlier order denying his petition under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to return the boys to his care and custody. This court affirmed the earlier order in In re Kailey E. (March 26, 2008, B200605) [nonpub. opn.]. The father contends the trial court erred in terminating jurisdiction because there were allegations the mother was using drugs, and evidence the legal guardian allowed the mother unsupervised contact with the children. Court find no error and affirm the juvenile courts order.

Joaquin Alvarado was convicted of one count of selling cocaine with a true finding on an allegation that he was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense, and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, plus a finding that he had suffered one prior strike. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c); 12021, subd. (a)(1), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)[1] He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 12 years. Alvarado appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the armed enhancement and the firearm possession count, and contending the jury rather than the court should have determined the strike allegation, that the strike should have been stricken, and that his sentence cannot stand. Court agree that the evidence is insufficient to support the armed enhancement ancillary to the drug offense but otherwise affirm and remand for resentencing.

Lora L. (Mother) appeals from a July 16, 2007 order terminating her parental rights to Brittney L. (born in January 2001) and Catrina L. (born in August 2003). We affirm the order because substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts rejection of the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, former 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A), now subd. (c)(1)(B).)

Jackie Lyn Coulombe appeals an order dismissing her tort action against City of Oxnard, Thomas Holden, Mayor, Manuel M. Lopez, former Mayor, Alan Wisotsky, James S. Eicher and Jeffrey Held (hereafter referred to in the singular as City). The trial court found Coulombe to be a vexatious litigant. It dismissed her action when she failed to furnish security. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Jackie Lyn Coulombe appeals an order dismissing her tort action against defendants County of Ventura, County Supervisors John Flynn, Steve Bennett, Linda Parks, Judy Mikels and Kathy Long, and attorneys Dirk DeGenna and Alan Wisotsky, (defendants hereafter referred to in the singular as the County). We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding Coulombe to be a vexatious litigant, by requiring her to furnish security and by dismissing her action when she failed to furnish security. Court affirm.