CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant filed a motion requesting that the trial court vacate its dismissal of her lawsuit against respondent. The court denied her motion and she filed this timely appeal. Court reverse.

In these consolidated appeals, the parents challenge the juvenile courts denial of visitation after termination of reunification services and argue that because they were denied visitation, the juvenile court erred in terminating their parental rights. Court affirm.

Appellants Maria F. (Mother) and Javier B. (Father) appeal from the findings and orders of the juvenile court following a hearing on Mothers Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] petition and a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The juvenile court denied the petition, terminated parental rights, and found the minor child, Arlene B., adoptable. Mother contends that reversal is required because her petition established changed circumstances indicating that the continuation of reunification services would be in Arlenes best interests. Father sets forth no contentions of his own, but joins in Mothers arguments. Court affirm.

Jaime Erazo was convicted by a jury of one count of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years and sentenced to three years in state prison. On appeal Erazo contends the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony concerning child suggestibility and implanted memory, his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence and the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify in violation of Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106] (Griffin). Court affirm.

Edgardo Trigueros appeals from the judgment of conviction for corporal injury to a cohabitant, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, making criminal threats, dissuading a witness, and two counts of child abuse. He argues that (1) jury instructions were improper and (2) the court erred in imposing an aggravated term for several of the crimes. Court conclude only his second argument has merit. Court remand the case to the trial court to sentence him in accordance with the requirements of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

James Lamar Rossum was convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance, with one prior strike and six prior prison term allegations found true. He was sentenced to state prison for six years (three years upper term plus three years for three of the prior prison terms). Rossum appeals, claiming there were evidentiary and Pitchess errors and, in a supplemental brief, Cunningham error.

Victor Sanchez was convicted of second degree murder, for which he was sentenced to state prison for a term of 15 years to life. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).) Sanchez appeals, contending there was instructional error and challenging a $10,000 restitution order imposed without a hearing. Court vacate the $10,000 restitution order, remand for a hearing, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Antonio Marron was convicted of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder (count 1) and robbery (count 2), with true findings on allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (counts 1 and 2), and committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang (counts 1 and 2). (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a), 211, 12022.7, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) On count 1, he was sentenced to state prison for life (with a 15-year minimum parole eligibility proviso for the gang enhancement), plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement (on count 2, sentence was imposed and stayed). Marron appeals, contending reversal is required (I) because the prosecutor failed to disclose the identity of rebuttal witnesses, (II) because there was evidentiary error, and (III) because there is insufficient evidence with regard to the robbery count and the gang enhancements. Court agree that there is insufficient evidence to support Marrons robbery conviction and that it must be reversed, modify the judgment by striking the stayed sentence on the robbery count and, as modified, affirm.

Chelsey M. appeals from the juvenile courts order continuing her wardship after finding she had committed aggravated assault with great bodily injury. Court affirm.

Andrew Alexander Corrales appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of second degree burglary with a special finding, based on his admission in a bifurcated bench proceeding, that he had previously been convicted of robbery, a serious felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. The trial court sentenced Corrales to six years in state prison, the upper term of three years for burglary doubled under the Three Strikes law. On appeal Corrales argues imposition of an upper term sentence based on the trial courts factual findings concerning aggravating circumstances violated his right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Court affirm.

A narcotics task force officer watched Terry Hughes trade an off-white rock-like substance for cash. Hughes was arrested and convicted by a jury of one count of selling a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), after which he waived his rights and admitted two prior drug convictions (Health and Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a)) and four prior convictions for which he had served prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Hughes to state prison for seven years (midterm of four years, plus three consecutive years for one of the Health and Safety Code priors).
The judgment is affirmed.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that 16 year old Arthur C. had assaulted a minor with a knife, placed Arthur on probation at home with his mother, and set the maximum term of confinement at four years. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602; Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) Arthur appeals, claiming the juvenile court failed to consider his defense (that he was acting in defense of others). Court disagree and affirm the order.

In 1999, as part of a plea agreement, Jose Sanchez waived his rights, entered a no contest plea to one count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), and confirmed his understanding that he would be sentenced to state prison for a term of 16 months provided he appeared in two months for a sentencing hearing but that, in the event he failed to appear, he would be sentenced to a term of up to three years (upper term). He did not appear for sentencing.
The judgment is affirmed.

A juvenile court found that Curtis T., a minor, committed the misdemeanor of unlawfully causing a fire of a structure or forest land. (Pen. Code, 452, subd. (c).) He was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 725, subd. (a)), and placed on six months of informal probation. The minor appeals, claiming that there was insufficient evidence that he committed the crime. Court reject his arguments and affirm.