CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

A jury found defendant Donald Wayne Riley guilty of petty theft with a theft-related prior conviction and assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. It was found that defendant had two strikes and had served two prior prison terms. The court sentenced him to two consecutive 25-year-to-life terms. On appeal, defendant raises the following nine contentions: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a bifurcated trial on the strikes; (2) the trial court misinstructed on the burden of proof required for conviction; (3) his conviction for petty theft with a prior must be reversed; (4) his strike for child endangerment with personal use of a dangerous or deadly weapon could not to be used to enhance his sentence; (5) trial counsel was ineffective for fail[ing] to assert a legal objection to the incompleteness of proof and the resultant defective jury verdicts; (6) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of consecutive sentences; (7) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences; (8) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss one or both of his strikes pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497; and (9) his sentence violate[s] the Eight[h] amendment and [federal] due process prohibition against punishing a persons status. Rejecting these contentions, Court affirm the judgment.

In November 2006, defendant Gregory Brian Detoskey pled guilty to several criminal charges in two cases in exchange for the dismissal of other charges. Sentencing was set for December 19, 2006. On that date, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years in prison.

On January 5, 2007, the court issued a minute order placing the matter on calendar for further proceedings regarding custody credits and restitution. That further hearing was held on January 18, 2007, at which time the court ordered defendants custody credits corrected, then clarified that the restitution fine previously ordered was to be split equally between the two cases. Defendant was represented throughout the trial court proceedings by retained counsel. On March 7, 2007, acting through his retained attorney, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the sentencing of the above entitled court rendered on January 18, 2007. In that same document, defendant requested appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

A jury convicted Willie Laky Roberts of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5 subd. (a), count 1); attempted false imprisonment by violence ( 236, 237, subd. (a), 664, count 3); and battery of a cohabitant ( 243, subd. (e)(1), count 4). The jury found true that in the commission of count one, Roberts inflicted great bodily injury on his cohabitant. ( 1192.7, subd. (c)(8); 12022.7, subd. (e).) The trial court denied probation and sentenced Roberts to 7 years and 4 months as follows: 3 years on count 1; 4 years for the enhancements; 4 months on count 3; and time already served in custody on count 4. The court also ordered restitution. In addition, the court ordered Roberts to "have no contact" with the victim for ten years. Roberts contends his conviction for battery must be stayed pursuant to section 654; and, the no-contact order was unauthorized and must be reversed. For purposes of this appeal, he abandoned claims regarding the restitution fines. Court affirm in part, and reverse in part.

The juvenile court declared Robert M. a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) after entering a true finding he committed battery (Pen. Code, 242). Robert also admitted to committing petty theft (Pen. Code, 484). The court placed him on probation. Robert contends the evidence is insufficient to support the true finding of battery. The juvenile court orders are affirmed.

Debra P. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her son, D.I., and an order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1]petition regarding D.I. and two of her other children, V.P. and Z.M. She contends the court erred by denying her section 388 petition without a hearing and by not applying the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption of section 366.26,[2]subdivision (c)(1)(A) and the sibling relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E). Court affirm the orders.

Erick C. and Julia C. appeal a juvenile court judgment terminating their parental rights to their minor children Isaiah C. and M.C. (together the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Erick contends the court erred by summarily denying his section 388 petition for modification seeking to have the minors returned to his custody. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating his parental rights. Julia joins in these arguments. Court affirm the judgment.

Cindy appeals a judgment of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her minor son, Rolando N., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Cindy contends the court erred by denying her section 388 petition for modification seeking either return of Rolando to her care with family maintenance services, or alternatively, for additional services. She also contends the court lacked sufficient evidence to support its finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) and sibling relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E) do not apply to preclude terminating her parental rights. We affirm the judgment.

Stephan S. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
Stephan S.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

A modification decision.

Plaintiff, Michael Petersen, a paralegal and private investigator, filed suit against the law firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP (BB&K) and Jerry Dagrella, an attorney with BB&K, alleging eight tort causes of action, including slander and slander per se. Each cause of action is based on Dagrellas alleged statements to Petersens clients and others that Petersen was a crook, sued people for a living, learned how to do so while he was in prison, and stole money from his clients.
Petersen appeals and Court reverse. Court conclude that Dagrellas alleged statements were too remotely related to the issue of Petersens credibility to fall within the ambit of subdivision (e)(2) of section 425.16. We further conclude that the statements did not concern an issue of public interest within the meaning of subdivision (e)(4) of section 425.16. Accordingly, Court reverse the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and the ensuing judgment dismissing Petersens complaint, including its award of reasonable attorney fees and costs to defendants.

On July 3, 2006, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information in superior court charging appellant Yolanda Christina Fuentes as follows: Count Iassault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a)(1)); Count IIassault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)); Count IIIbattery with serious bodily injury ( 243, subd. (d)); and
Count IVthreatening a witness ( 140, subd. (a)).
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant James Webster challenges the imposition of the upper term for his conviction for assault with a firearm. He also challenges the use of a juvenile adjudication to impose an increased sentence under the three strikes law. Court affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Dwayne Thomas Waller pled no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and admitted a Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement allegation. Consistent with the plea agreement, the court imposed a six year prison term, consisting of the three year midterm on the substantive offense and the three year lower term on the enhancement.
Appellant requested the court issue a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, 1237.5). The court denied the request. 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 himself submitted a brief to this court in which he challenges the imposition of the firearm-use enhancement and the validity of his plea and admission. Court affirm.