CA Unpub Decisions

Roy L., Sr., (Father)[1]appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor sons, Andrew, Elijah and Roy, Jr., (together the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[2] Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings that the minors are adoptable.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a motion to augment the record along with its respondent's brief. The Agency seeks to introduce an interim review report it alleges contains new evidence showing Father's challenge to adoptability is moot. Father filed an opposition to the motion. Court affirm the judgment and deny the motion to augment.

Juan Antonio Reyes entered a negotiated guilty plea to aggravated assault (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)) and admitted a criminal street gang allegation (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Reyes to the seven year prison term stipulated in the plea agreement. The judgment is affirmed.

Yvonne M. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her son, Angel V., and an order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. (Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) She asserts the court erred because she showed a change of circumstances and that it would be in Angel's best interests to grant her petition, and she showed the beneficial parent child relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption. Court affirm the orders.

Defendant George Bret Pardo appeals his upper term prison sentence as a violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to trial by jury. He also argues that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the stay of his sentences on counts 5 and 6. Court agree as to the necessary corrections to the abstract of judgment, but will otherwise affirm his sentence.

Therese A. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court removing her son Christian A. from her care pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387.[1] On appeal, Mother contends (1) the juvenile court erred when it sustained the section 387 petition and ordered Christian removed from her home; (2) the juvenile court erred when it delegated authority to the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) to determine whether visitation should occur; and (3) the juvenile court erred in transferring the dependency case to Los Angeles County without making a finding that doing so was in Christians best interests as required by section 375. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court found true allegations that minor received a stolen vehicle (count 1Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)) and tampered with that vehicle (count 2Veh. Code, 10852). On appeal, minor appears to contend both that the court erred in permitting a true finding on count 2 because it was a lesser included offense of count 1, and that the court erred in finding count 1 true because it was a lesser included offense of count 2. While we agree that the offense of tampering may be a lesser included offense of the receipt of the same stolen property, we find the issue irrelevant because sufficient evidence was presented at trial showing that the charges involved separate, divisible conduct for which separate true findings were appropriate. Minor additionally maintains the juvenile court failed expressly to exercise its discretion in determining whether the wobbler offense of receipt of a stolen vehicle should be deemed a felony or misdemeanor. The People concede the issue. Court agree and, therefore, remand the matter to permit the juvenile court to make an express determination, in exercise of its discretion, of whether minors commission of the count 1 offense should be deemed a felony or misdemeanor. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of sodomy of a person 14 years of age or younger (count 1Pen. Code, 286, subd. (c)(1)) and aggravated sodomy of a person 14 years of age or younger (count 2 269, subd. (a)(3)). On appeal, defendant contends that the People adduced insufficient evidence of force for the jury to have found him guilty of aggravated sodomy. Court find the verdict supported by sufficient evidence of force or duress and, therefore, affirm the judgment below.

Pursuant to Penal Code section 859a, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to the substantive count and two of the one year prison priors in exchange for an agreed to disposition of a four-year state prison term. In accordance with the negotiated disposition, the defendant was committed to state prison for four years and awarded the appropriate custody credits.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence or other matters after the plea as well as the validity of the plea or admission. Defendants request for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause was denied.

A jury convicted appellant Chava Seechan of individual counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, 664;[1]count 1) and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle ( 246; count 2), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm ( 245, subd. (b); counts 3, 7) and three counts of second degree robbery ( 211, 212, subd. (c); counts 4-6). The jury also found true enhancement allegations of the following: appellant committed each offense at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members ( 186.22, subd. (b));[2]in committing the count 5 and 6 offenses he personally used a firearm, within the meaning of subdivision (b) of section 12022.53; in committing the count 1, 3 and 7 offenses he personally used a firearm within the meaning of subdivision (a)(1) of section 12022.5; and in committing the count 1 and 5 offenses, he intentionally discharged a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (c)). On appeal, appellant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the gang enhancement imposed in association with his count 4 conviction of second degree robbery, and (2) the abstract of judgment setting forth the determinate portion of the sentence to be served before the life sentence imposed on count 1 incorrectly stated a total of 45 years 2 months. Court reverse the true finding on the count 4 gang enhancement, direct the court to issue an amended abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm.

On September 1, 2006, the Kings County District Attorney filed an information in superior court charging appellant Jonathan Charles Severs and codefendant Robert David Asher as follows:

Count Ikidnapping (Pen. Code,[1] 209, subd. (b)(1)); Count IIrape in concert ( 264.1, 261, subd. (a)(2)); Count IIIforcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)); Count IVrape of an intoxicated person ( 261, subd. (a)(3)); Count Voral copulation ( 288a, subd. (c)(2)); Count VIoral copulation of an intoxicated person ( 288a, subd. (i)); The judgment is affirmed.



Count VIIforcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)) (appellant only);

Count VIIIrape of an intoxicated person ( 261, subd. (a)(3)) (appellant only);

Count IXsodomy ( 286, subd. (i)) (appellant only);

Count Xeavesdropping or recording confidential communications ( 632, subd. (a)); and

Count XIunlawful taking and driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)).

Appellant, Vincent Edward Britt, pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and was placed on Proposition 36 probation. On appeal, Britt contends the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to suppress. Court reverse.

On September 1, 2006, the Kings County District Attorney filed an information in superior court charging appellant Robert David Asher and codefendant Jonathan Charles Severs as follows:
Count 1kidnapping (Pen. Code, 209, subd. (b)(1));
Count 2rape in concert ( 264.1, 261, subd. (a)(2)); Count 3forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2));
Count 4rape of an intoxicated person ( 261, subd. (a)(3)); Count 5oral copulation ( 288a, subd. (c)(2)); Count 6oral copulation of an intoxicated person ( 288a, subd. (i)); Count 7forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)) (codefendant Severs only);
The judgment is affirmed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement covering the instant case and Fresno County Superior Court case No. F06903109-7 (case No. 109-7), appellant Monique Trujillo pled guilty to a single count of fraudulently issuing checks without sufficient funds (Pen. Code, 476a, subd. (a)). At a sentencing hearing covering both cases, in the instant case the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years probation, one of the terms of which was that she serve 240 days in county jail. The court ordered that the county jail term be served concurrently with a term of the same length imposed as a condition of probation in case No. 109-7.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement covering the instant case and Fresno County Superior Court case No. F06909416 (case No. 916), appellant Monique Trujillo pled no contest to a single count of unlawful use of personal indentifying information (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a)). At a sentencing hearing covering both cases, in the instant case the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years probation, one of the terms of which was that she serve 240 days in county jail. The court ordered that the county jail term be served concurrently with a term of the same length imposed as a condition of probation in case No. 916. Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.