CA Unpub Decisions

Christopher Russell appeals from a domestic violence restraining order issued for the protection of his former girlfriend, Kristen Kondrot. He contends the court: (1) failed to give him a full and fair hearing before issuing the order; (2) erred in holding the hearing prior to the disposition of criminal charges against him; and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to demonstrate that Kondrot was actually injured by any domestic violence. Court affirm.

Hooshang Farhang Mehr appeals from a domestic violence restraining order issued in the midst of a very contentious divorce proceeding. He argues the court abused its discretion by not making a decision based upon reasonable credible evidence in this case. To be precise, Mehr does not contend there is no evidence supporting the courts conclusion that he engaged in domestic violence because his wife, Negar Safaie-Fard testified unequivocally that he had. Instead, what Mehr asserts is that in the context of all the evidence before the court, her allegations of physical abuse were not credible; and her testimony must, as a consequence, be deemed insufficient to support the order. Lack of credibility is not a contention Court can entertain on appeal, and Court thus reject the assertion.

Nine-year-old William and five-year-old Noah were removed from their parents custody for the third time in March 2007. Because the previous dependency proceedings had been terminated, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a new petition based on the childrens abuse and neglect due to the parents long-standing drug use and recommended denying the parents reunification services. The juvenile court denied services to the father, but, notwithstanding the staggering amount of services previously offered to the mother, it gave her one more chance and ordered services.
Three times is enough. The juvenile court improperly focused on the childrens love for their mother rather than any realistic chance they would find permanency and stability with her. We find the order providing services to the mother was an abuse of discretion and reverse it. Court affirm the order denying services to the father.

Defendant Joseph Mario Rosano pleaded no contest to evading a peace officer, a felony (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a) count 3), and carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 12025, subds. (a)(3), (b)(7) count 7),[1]in exchange for a stipulated term of eight months (one-third the middle term) in state prison for count 3, to run consecutively to his sentence in two unrelated cases out of Solano County, and dismissal of the remaining counts.
The trial court sentenced defendant to eight months in prison for evading a peace officer, to run consecutively to his sentence in the Solano County cases, and a concurrent six months in jail for carrying a concealed weapon. The court awarded defendant 48 days of presentence custody credit (32 actual days and 16 good conduct) against his sentence for carrying a concealed weapon; it awarded him no credit against his sentence for evading a peace officer. The judgment is modified .

Defendant David Earl Wiggins entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of cocaine in exchange for a sentence of 16 months in state prison. Three prior prison term allegations were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant Sean Rowell of arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code, 451, subd. (b); further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code), explosion of a destructive device with intent to injure or intimidate ( 12303.3), and found that he used a device designed to accelerate the fire ( 451.1, subd. (a)(5)). Defendant was sentenced to a stipulated term of 13 years. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, to view out-of-court admissions with caution, should have instructed the jury that a prosecution witness was an accomplice as a matter of law, and limited his right to cross-examine a witness in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. He also claims there was prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, and cumulative error warrants reversal. Court affirm.

Defendant Jerry Lee Allen II, appeals after pleading guilty to burglary. He contends the trial court abused its discretion failing to initiate proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 for admission to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) without an adequate statement of reasons. Court affirm the judgment.

After defendant Sean Michael Burdan pleaded no contest to cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11358), the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years formal probation. The court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees, three of which he now claims must be stricken: public defender attorney fees in the amount of $420 (Pen. Code, 987.8); a presentence investigation report fee in the amount of $481; and probation supervision fees of $101 per month ( 1203.1b). For clarity, Court direct the trial court to prepare a new order and affirm the judgment.

Narcotics agents served a search warrant on defendant at his home and found drug paraphernalia, numerous prescription medications not prescribed to defendant and 43 rounds of ammunition. In his 10-year-old sons bedroom, where defendant had been allowing a transient to stay, agents found three used crack pipes easily within the childs reach. Defendant was arrested and his child taken into custody and turned over to Social Services. Approximately three months later, defendant was stopped for driving with expired registration tags. Records revealed he had been released from jail two months prior and had an outstanding felony warrant. When police unfolded the Department of Motor Vehicle printout defendant handed them, a white crystalline rock later identified as cocaine fell out. More cocaine was discovered during a search of defendants car. The judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision.

In this personal injury action, plaintiffs Jose Moreno, Gerardus Reed, Paulina Osorio and Michelle Perez, through her guardian ad litem Maria Osorio, contend the trial court abused its discretion by denying them a jury trial after they failed to post jury fees. They also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's verdict in favor of the defendant, the City of Imperial Beach (the City), on the ground they did not establish the City created or had notice of a dangerous condition of its property. Court affirm the judgment.

Roberto Avila appeals a judgment after the superior court denied his petition for a writ of administrative mandamus seeking relief from a driver's license suspension order issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. Avila contends: (1) the administrative record contains insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that police lawfully stopped his car and (2) his due process rights were violated. Court conclude the record contains substantial evidence to support the court's determination and affirm the judgment.

The Housing Authority of San Diego County (Authority) terminated Doris Cintron's eligibility for participation in the federally funded Section 8 Rental Assistance Program (Section 8 Program). Cintron requested an informal administrative hearing for the purpose of reviewing the Authority's decision. After a hearing officer upheld the Authority's decision, Cintron filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the trial court, seeking to have the decision of the Authority overturned. The trial court entered an order denying her petition. On appeal, Cintron claims that the hearing officer and the trial court erred in relying on hearsay testimony and in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial information in affirming the Authority's decision. Cintron also claims that the trial court failed to exercise its independent judgment in denying her petition. Court affirm the order.

Vega was charged with one count of assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily injury (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of residential robbery ( 211) with an enhancement that he personally used a knife in the commission of the robbery ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of residential burglary ( 459) with an allegation that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence. ( 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) It was also alleged that Vega had three strike priors, two serious felony priors and two prison priors. ( 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12 subd. (c)(1), 667, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (b).) Gonzalez argues that she was improperly sentenced to the upper term. Court reject Gonzalezs claim and affirm her judgment of conviction in its entirety.