CA Unpub Decisions

In April 2006, defendant Charles William Dykes, Jr., was placed on Proposition 36 probation (Pen. Code, 1210 et seq.) for a period of three years, after pleading no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and admitting he had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The charge stemmed from an incident in which, during a parole search, 1.2 grams of methamphetamine were discovered in defendants sock. Defendant previously had been sentenced to terms in state prison in 1996 and 2003. Court have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record in this case and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

The juvenile court entered an order declaring J.B. (the minor) a dependent child but allowing him to remain at home in the custody and care of Jessica C. (the mother). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, subds. (b) & (j), 358, 360; undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant Robert B., the minors father who has been incarcerated since before the minor was born, appeals the portion of the courts order denying him reunification services. Court affirm the juvenile courts order.

A jury convicted John Harlan of attempted false imprisonment by violence or menace (Pen. Code, 236, 237, subd. (a), 664; all statutory references are to the Penal Code) as a lesser included offense of false imprisonment by violence or menace. Before the trial, Harlan admitted he had six strike prior convictions ( 667, subds. (b) through (i)), two serious felony prior convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)) and had served three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Harlan to 25 years to life in prison under the Three Strikes Law. The judgment is affirmed.

James W. appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to his daughter, Shyanne, on a finding of abandonment under Family Code section 7822. James contends that insufficient evidence supports the court's finding that he left Shyanne in the care of the other parent with the intent to abandon her. Court affirm the judgment.

Leroy D., a healthy baby boy born March 2005, tested negative for controlled substances. His mother, Natalie F., tested positive for methamphetamine. Based on that positive test, an immediate response referral was made by the hospital to the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS or the Department). A social worker, Tracy Link, responded the next day and visited mother and Leroy at the hospital.
During Links interview, mother recounted that she had been convicted of two theft cases and had been released from custody on January 27 or January 29, 2005. She was currently living in a motel with Leroys father, Christopher D. An open family reunification case for her other son, Andrew, was pending. The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

Appellant Andre L. (father) contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his section Welfare and Institution Code section 388 petition and terminating his parental rights as to his son Andre (the child). Court affirm.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of the term non-fixed assets in an employment agreement that was entered into by appellant, Michael Troilo, and respondent, Big Sandy Band of Western Mono Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe (Tribe), when the Tribe hired Troilo as general manager of its Mono Wind Casino (Casino). The Tribe waived sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the employment relationship but limited the assets that could be executed against it to non-fixed assets of the Gaming/Hotel facility or the Tribes share of the profits from the Gaming/Hotel Facility.
After appellant received an arbitration award of $478,000 plus interest, attorney fees and costs in his wrongful termination action against the Tribe, he obtained a writ of execution. The writ directed the county sheriff to take custody of the proceeds of all sales and all types of gambling, as well as cash on the premises. The county sheriff entered the Casino and took over $169,000 in cash. The seizure of this money required the Tribe to shut the Casino down. Otherwise, the Tribe would have been in violation of federal regulations requiring that minimum cash reserves be maintained. The order is affirmed.

Appellants challenged the election of Rita Woodard to the office of Auditor Controller Treasurer Tax Collector of Tulare County on the ground she did not meet the eligibility requirements for that office. The superior court considered various provisions of the Government Code and interpreted those provisions to mean that there were no eligibility requirements for the office other than the general requirement that a candidate be a registered voter.
Appellants contend the superior court erred because the Government Code and the related ordinances of Tulare County should be interpreted to require candidates for the office to meet the eligibility requirements the Government Code specifies for county auditors and county treasurers. Court conclude that the superior court correctly interpreted the statutory scheme. The Legislature established no specific eligibility requirements for candidates running for the new office of auditor controller treasurer tax collector created by Government Code section 24304.2. Accordingly, judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, Brian Christopher Carlsen, contends the trial court violated his plea agreement by imposing a sentence greater than indicated in the original negotiated disposition. Appellant further argues that certain restitution fines were improperly imposed.
Since this case will be remanded and appellant allowed to withdraw his no contest plea, appellant concedes that the balance of his claims relating to restitution fines are moot.

On August 4, 2006, at approximately 5:00 p.m., appellant, Ben Ray Hanna, was stopped by Kern County sheriffs deputies for a traffic violation. Hanna was unable to provide the deputies with a license number or the vehicles registration. A record check disclosed he was driving with a suspended license and on parole. The deputies searched Hanna and found 8.2 grams of methamphetamine in his sock. In his car, they found two zip lock baggies containing several smaller baggies. Following independent review of the record, Court find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.

It was alleged in an amended juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) that appellant Shyheim J., a minor, committed battery with infliction of serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (d)) and sexual battery (Pen. Code, 243.4, subd. (e)(1)). At the jurisdiction hearing the court found both allegations true. At the disposition hearing, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court; found that appellants welfare required that custody be taken from appellants parents; placed appellant under the supervision of the probation officer until December 15, 2007; and ordered that appellant reside in the home of his parents. On appeal, appellant contends the court ordered appellant removed from the physical custody of his parents and, in doing so, acted in excess of its statutory authority. Court strike the courts order removing appellants physical custody from appellants parents, and affirm the judgment as modified.

The court readjudged appellant, Sylvester A., a ward of the court after Sylvester admitted allegations charging him with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)).[1] On February 8, 2007, the trial court placed Sylvester on probation on condition he serve 365 days in the Elkhorn Correctional Facility, Delta Program. On appeal, Sylvester contends: 1) the court erred when it denied his request for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his offense was gang-related; 2) one of his conditions of probation is constitutionally vague; and 3) the minute order of his disposition hearing contains an error. Court find merit to these last two contentions. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450, 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested six-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her son C. Court deny the petition.

A modification decision.