CA Unpub Decisions

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant requested and received two extensions of time within which to file a supplemental brief. Court received no supplemental brief or further communication from defendant. Having reviewed the record as required by People v. Wende, supra, Court order a clarification to the abstract and affirm the judgment.

C.N. (appellant), the mother of B.H. (the minor), appeals in pro per from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395; further statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant claims she deserve[s] another chance towards being a mother to [her] son. Court affirm the judgment (order terminating parental rights).

Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. With the permission of this court, defendant filed a supplemental brief apparently challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his conviction. Court reject defendants claim of error and affirm the judgment.

This is defendants third appeal. In his first appeal, case No. E034498, this court reversed the judgment on ground of unlawful plea bargaining and remanded the matter to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Following remand, defendant withdrew his guilty plea, and the People eventually filed a five-count information with numerous prior allegations.
In this third appeal, defendant claims (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the courts true finding that his 2001 battery conviction qualified as a strike; and (2) the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect defendants conviction and concurrent sentence on count 5. We agree with the parties that the abstract of judgment must be amended; however, Court reject defendants remaining contention.

Sally S., the mother of Faith S. and K.W., appeals the judgments terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Sally contends the juvenile court erred by finding the children likely to be adopted and by not applying the parent-child beneficial relationship and/or the sibling relationship exceptions to adoption. (Former 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A), now 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i), and former 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E), now 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)

Darlene G. appeals the findings and orders entered at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 360, subdivision (d) and 361, subdivision (c). Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal involves a dispute about the governance of the Greater Bethel Missionary Baptist Church in San Bernardino (Bethel). Plaintiffs seek appellate review of three rulings of the trial court: an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend on wrongful termination claims involving Bethels former pastor, David Buffong; a judicial determination under Corporations Code section 9418 of the validity of an election of the church trustees; and an order granting defendants summary judgment motion on plaintiffs claims for forcible entry and detainer. Based on our deferential or independent review, as appropriate, Court affirm the trial court on all points.

Defendant Raul Juan Serafin appeals from a jury conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 1), and transportation of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a) (count 2). He argues his conviction should be reversed because there is insufficient evidence he possessed methamphetamine for sale, and the trial court prejudiced his defense by not giving the jury a unanimity instruction. Defendant also contends his sentence is unconstitutional because the trial court imposed an aggravated term in violation of his right to a jury trial.

A jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)) (count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2), and making criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422) (count 3).[1], [2] As to counts 1 and 3, the jury found true the allegations that defendant was personally armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The jury found not true the allegation that the attempted murder was premeditated. ( 187, subd. (a).) The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of six years. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by not staying his sentences for counts 2 and 3 pursuant to section 654. The People concede defendants argument is correct as to count 2, but disagree with defendants argument concerning count 3. Court affirm the judgment as modified in this opinion.

Scott Allen Wasko (Scott[1]) in propria persona appeals from temporary orders for spousal support and attorneys fees awarded to Lori Ann Wasko (Lori). He contends that (1) the entry of Loris default on Loris failure to timely file a response to his petition barred Lori from filing the order to show cause that resulted in the orders he appeals; (2) Lori should not have been granted relief from this default; (3) none of the relief requested in the order to show cause should have been granted because it was not served in advance of the hearing; (4) the order for him to pay Lori support and attorney fees was not supported by his and Loris income and expenses; and (5) Lori and Loris counsel should pay sanctions to Scott because the positions and actions they have taken have been meritless. Court affirm and deny sanctions.

This is defendants third appeal. In his first appeal, case No. E034498, this court reversed the judgment on ground of unlawful plea bargaining and remanded the matter to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Following remand, defendant withdrew his guilty plea, and the People eventually filed a five-count information with numerous prior allegations.
In this third appeal, defendant claims (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the courts true finding that his 2001 battery conviction qualified as a strike; and (2) the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect defendants conviction and concurrent sentence on count 5. Corut agree with the parties that the abstract of judgment must be amended; however, Court reject defendants remaining contention.

Appellant was charged by amended felony complaint with theft from an elder adult (Pen. Code.,[1] 368, subd. (d); count 1), residential burglary ( 459; count 2), and dissuading a witness. ( 136.1, subd. (c)(1); count 3.) Count 3 further alleged the victim was an elder person under section 667.9, subdivision (a). The information further alleged appellant served a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Pursuant to section 859a, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to counts 1 and 3 in exchange for an agreed four-year prison term and dismissal of the remaining count and special allegations.However, prior to sentencing, defendant, represented by new counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was heard and denied on May 18, 2007.
The judgment is affirmed.

At the age of 19, petitioner Lorenzo Mora started using heroin. Since then, he has spent his life on probation, on parole, or in prison. Between the ages of 20 and 23, he was convicted of auto tampering, unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, and robbery. Then in 1988, when he was 24, he was convicted of even more serious offenses: kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm; he admitted a personal firearm use enhancement. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment. Petitioner has applied himself in prison, completing numerous classes and self-help programs. His prison disciplinary record between 1988 and 1998 is not unblemished; however, since 1998, when he first became eligible for parole, he has been cited for only one instance of serious misconduct a work strike in 2003. About 700 other prisoners were cited in connection with the same work strike, and petitioner claims that refusing to participate would have put his life in danger. Court reverse.

Movants and appellants Casey Christopher Wheeler and David Dylan Wheeler[1]appeal the denial of their motion to set aside the default judgment (Code Civ. Proc., 473, subd. (d)) against them in a forfeiture action brought by plaintiff and respondent the People. Appellants contend the default judgment was void on its face and obtained by extrinsic fraud. Court agree that the default judgment was void on its face and should have been set aside.