CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Alba C. appeals from jurisdictional, dispositional, and related orders made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300, 342, 364, and 366.22[1]regarding Anita C. (born 1990), Richard C. (born 1995), Christopher B. (born 1999), Shannon B. (born 2001), and Edward C. (born 2003) (collectively, the children). Alba is the mother of all the children except Anita. Christopher and Shannon are the children of James B. (James), Albas ex-husband; Richard and Edward are the children of Vicente F.; and Anita is the daughter of Iris M., Albas niece, and James C., another ex-husband of Alba. In December 2006, based upon allegations against Alba in a July 2006 section 342 supplemental petition, the dependency court removed all five children from Albas home, placed Richard and Edward with Vicente F. and terminated jurisdiction over them with a family law order, retained jurisdiction over Christopher and Shannon but placed them with James, and issued a protective custody order for Anita, who could not be located. Alba contends the dependency court erred by returning Christopher and Shannon to James custody, the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations in the supplemental petition regarding the children, and the evidence was insufficient to support the trial courts finding that no reasonable means existed to protect the children except removing them from Albas home. Court disagree and affirm.

The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against minor N.C. The petition alleged N.C. committed second degree robbery and assault with a firearm. The petition also alleged N.C. personally used a firearm in the commission of these offenses. On appeal, N.C. raises two arguments. First, because the court struck the firearm-use allegations, appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he committed an assault with a firearm. Second, appellant argues the court violated Penal Code section 654 by adding a term for the assault charge in calculating the maximum term of confinement. Court conclude substantial evidence supported the trial courts finding that N.C. committed an assault with a firearm. The victims testimony about the guns appearance and the way N.C. used it supported a reasonable inference that the gun was not a toy but was real and loaded. The juvenile courts dismissal of the firearm use enhancement allegations was not an implied finding that N.C. did not commit assault with a firearm. The court erred, however, by adding a term for the assault charge to appellants maximum confinement term. Penal Code section 654 barred additional punishment for the assault, because it was based on the same criminal objective and conduct as the robbery.

Deshawn Terrel Eldridge appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and grand theft (Pen. Code, 487) and his admission that he suffered one prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d) and 667, subds. (b) - (i)), and one prior conviction of a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and that he served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[1] He was sentenced to prison for a total of 14 years and four months, consisting of the middle term of four years for the burglary conviction, doubled by reason of the Three Strikes law, plus one third the middle term, eight months, doubled to one year four months for the grand theft conviction, plus five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. The prior prison term enhancements were stricken for purposes of sentencing.

Daniel Ramos Garcia (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a contested probation violation hearing. On September 16, 2005, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of assault with a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2). He also admitted inflicting great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). According to the negotiated disposition, appellant was sentenced to time served and placed on five years formal probation. Also in conformance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to six years in state prison, suspended. The sentence consisted of the midterm of three years for the assault and three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. Appellants probation was revoked in July 2006 and reinstated in August 2006. His probation was again revoked and reinstated in November 2006. The judgment is affirmed.

Lewis Clark appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of selling a controlled substance, to wit cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), and a court trial in which he was found to have suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b) - (i)), served three prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and been convicted of selling a controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). He was sentenced to prison for six years, consisting of the low term of three years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The judgment is affirmed.

Based on conduct with the son of a coworker, Alvin Jose Urriza was convicted on one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Pen. Code, 269, subd. (a)(4)), and on five counts of lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)). According to the trial evidence, Jessie H., then 12 years old, lived in San Pedro with his mother and two sisters. His mother worked with Urriza, then 24 years old. Urriza confided in Jessie H. his interest in becoming the boys father figure and began frequently visiting his home during the summer and fall of 2005. During these visits, Urriza sexually abused Jessie H. The judgment is affirmed.

Irene Padilla pled nolo contendere to a single count of forgery after the trial court denied her suppression motion. On appeal, she contends the court should have granted the motion because the police had no probable cause to arrest her. We conclude the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. During a valid traffic stop, Padillas companion gave police a false name. Padilla confirmed this false identity when police questioned her. These facts established probable cause to believe Padilla violated Penal Code section 148 subdivision (a)(1) or aided and abetted her companion in violating that statute or Penal Code section 148.9.

Minor P.S. was the tenth child born to Mother. Shortly after his birth, he became her tenth child to enter the dependency system. Mother is not a party to this appeal, but Father, who was not the father of the other children, appeals from the termination of his parental rights. Finding no error, Court affirm.

In this marital dissolution case, husband and appellant Rudolf Eckhardt appeals from the determination of a number of issues pertaining to property and custody questions. Finding no error in the issues properly presented in this appeal, Court affirm.

Appellant Sherry E., mother of Samantha E., appeals the order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request to continue the permanency planning hearing. Court disagree, and affirm.

Petitioner Carina L. seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of the juvenile courts order setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider selection and implementation of a permanent plan for her one-year-old son Ruben L. The petition is opposed by the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and also by Ruben, who has joined in the Departments response. Court deny the petition.

This action involves the control of a closely held corporation and related partnership. One set of shareholders has accused another set of shareholders of improperly obtaining control of the corporation and the partnership and placing these two entities into bankruptcy to the detriment of the accusing shareholders.

The trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend against the accusing shareholders and entered judgments of dismissal against them, finding their accusations barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel and by a failure to allege a shareholder derivative action. Court disagree with these two findings of the trial court and reverse. In doing so, Court conclude that a court of competent jurisdiction has yet to finally determine the issue of whether the nonaccusing shareholders improperly obtained control of the corporation and partnership (and the accompanying power to file bankruptcy proceedings for those two entities). court also conclude that the plaintiffs have alleged an individual action as minority shareholders.

A modification decision.

A jury convicted defendant Michael John Navarrette of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459), petty theft (Pen. Code, 484), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)). The court sustained allegations of two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of five years and eight months in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends he was entitled to a unanimity instruction on the petty theft count and identifies an error in the abstract. Court order a correction to the abstract and otherwise affirm the judgment.