CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Benjamin Leon Andrade of possession of ammunition by a felon. (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1).) On appeal, he urges us to reverse his conviction because there was insufficient evidence the ammunition was live. He is wrong, both factually and legally. Court also reject his claim of sentencing error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from his conviction after he entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere (hereafter no contest) to two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a).)[1] Consistent with his plea agreement, he was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 32 years comprised of two 16-year full term consecutive sentences and was ordered to pay a $20 court security fee on both counts. ( 1465.8.)
On appeal defendant contends the record fails to show a factual basis for his plea and imposition of the security fee is a prohibited retroactive application of the statute that violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Lawrence Furman McClure guilty of a variety of crimes arising out of six separate robberies he committed in the span of five days in April 2006. The court sentenced him to 12 years 6 months in prison, which included the upper term for an attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction, a crime that was committed during one of the robberies. On appeal, defendant contends the trial courts reliance upon [his] probationary status in a drug possession case to impose the upper term constituted an abuse of discretion. The problem with defendants argument is that Court do not read the record the same way he does. The judgment is affirmed.

Lisa W. and Virgil W., the mother and father of Priscilla W. (the minor), appeal from the juvenile courts orders terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 388, 395; further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.) They raise numerous contentions which lack merit. Accordingly, Court affirm the orders.

Appellant, the father of the minors, appeals in pro. per. from the juvenile courts order terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. As the record fails to support his claim, Court affirm.

In what is the third appellate proceeding in this divorce action between Kathryn E. M. Brown and David S. Brown, Kathryn appeals from a supplemental judgment regarding spousal support, child support, litigation expenses and attorney fees. She contends that the court erred in (1) failing to award her a retroactive increase in temporary spousal support and reducing the level of permanent support, (2) requiring her to reimburse David for uncovered health care expenses of their children, child support payments he made after the court awarded him sole custody of the children and various litigation expenses, and (3) denying her request that he pay all or part of her attorney fees. Court reverse the judgment as to the permanent support award and the reimbursement of the uncovered health care expenses. In all other respects, Court affirm.

In December 2005, Elena Bystrova, a Russian citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, drove with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, with her nine-year-old child in the car . In May 2006, Bystrova entered a negotiated guilty plea to misdemeanor driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more with a prior conviction of a similar offense (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (b), 23540) and felony child abuse (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a)). In July the court placed Bystrova on five years' probation. In August the United States commenced proceedings to deport Bystrova to Russia. Court affirm.

The San Diego County Sheriff's Department (Department) decided not to retain Sherilyn Mabeus during her probationary period as a detentions nurse. Mabeus filed a complaint with the San Diego County Civil Service Commission (Commission). In her complaint, Mabeus alleged that the Department's decision not to retain her was made in retaliation for her reporting several health and safety violations to her supervisors, and for filing two complaints with the Department's Internal Affairs Office regarding a separate workplace incident. The Commission upheld the Department's non-retention decision. Mabeus filed a complaint/petition for writ of mandate in the trial court against the Commission and the Department, seeking to overturn the Commission's decision. The trial court denied the petition in its entirety and entered a judgment dismissing the action.
On appeal, Mabeus claims that the Commission's determination that she was not discriminated against was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Mabeus also claims that the Commission's hearing officer failed to consider evidence that demonstrated that the Department's reasons for failing to retain her were pretextual. Mabeus further claims that the trial court erred in denying her request that the court enter an order preventing the Department from asserting the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies in future litigation. Court affirm the judgment.

Robert H., Sr. (Robert Sr.), appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating his paternal rights to his minor son Robert H., Jr. (Robert Jr.), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Robert Sr. contends the court erred by finding the sibling relationship exception to adoption of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E),[2]did not apply to preclude terminating his parental rights. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Ventura Ortiz (defendant) challenges as prejudicial error the trial courts decision to admit evidence of his prior bad acts and convictions at his current trial. Court affirm.

Richard T. (Father) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating his parental rights to his 3-year-old daughter, Monique T., and 21-month-old son, R.T., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Fathers sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court and the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). ICWA requires that notice of a state court juvenile dependency proceeding be provided to any Native American tribe with which the child may be affiliated, or to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) if the tribe is not known. Federal guidelines, the California Rules of Court, and California statutory and case law require that any notice provided be filed with the juvenile court. The order terminating parental rights is conditionally reversed, and we order a limited remand.

Roman A. DiMeo asks this court to reverse an order denying his motion to set aside a default and default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure[1]section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)). DiMeo asserts he is entitled to relief from default based upon his excusable neglect and the mitigating circumstances surrounding his failure to answer the complaint. DiMeo also asserts the court erred in disregarding his statute of limitations defense. Court conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying DiMeo's motion for relief under both the mandatory and discretionary provisions of section 473(b). Court also conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in not addressing DiMeo's statute of limitations defense. For these reasons, Court affirm the court's order denying DiMeo's motion.

Appellant Shawn Gregory Bradshaw was convicted after jury trial of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1), two counts of felony corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant (counts 3 & 4), two counts of misdemeanor corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant (counts 5 & 7) and attempted child endangerment (lesser included offense to count 6). (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1); 273.5, subd. (a); 664; 273a, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to an aggregate term of four years imprisonment.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting count 3. Also, he argues that CALCRIM No. 852 infringes his constitutional jury trial and due process rights. Neither argument is persuasive; Court affirm.

A modification decision.