CA Unpub Decisions

The jury found defendant Rocio Santoyo guilty of first degree murder of her son Solomon in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a), and found defendant personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)). She was sentenced to 26 years to life. Court affirm the judgment.

Travis R. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed two instances of criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422), felonies, with the findings that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B). Appellant was placed in a camp community placement program and contends the record does not support the juvenile courts finding that he committed violations of Penal Code section 422. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the order.

Defendant and appellant Jose Luis Hernandez (defendant) was convicted of, among other crimes, assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a).)[1] Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury sua sponte on misdemeanor brandishing of a firearm ( 417, subd. (a)(2)), which defendant contends is a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon. COURT agree with the appellate authority, that notwithstanding language in older California Supreme Court cases, brandishing a firearm is a lesser related, not a lesser included, offense of assault with a deadly weapon. Court therefore affirm.

Following a hearing before a Board of Rights, appellant Tyrone Moore was removed from his position as a police officer for the City of Los Angeles. Moore filed a petition for administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his removal. The trial court rejected Moores challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, as well as an argument that the City violated Moores right to have the investigation into his conduct completed within the one-year statute of limitations found in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (the Act). Moore has abandoned his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in this appeal, but he renews his statute of limitations contention. Court conclude that Moores failure to raise the statute of limitations before the Board of Rights, and his failure to seek injunction relief for the alleged violation under Government Code section 3309.5, preclude appellate review of the issue. therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiffs, Richard S. and Sandra Reiner, as trustees of the Reiner revocable trust, and Diane Fantl, have appealed after the demurrer dismissal of their complaint. Plaintiffs filed a request to dismiss their appeal before the commencement of any briefing. We asked the parties to brief the issue of costs on appeal. We conclude the interests of justice would best be served with each side to bear their own costs on appeal. The dismissal request was filed before any briefing occurred. According to plaintiffs counsel, post judgment events including a $2,109,628.87 payment to a receiver have rendered the case largely moot. This an appropriate case for all of the parties to bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a); Small v. Halls Furniture Defined Benefit Pension Plan (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 648, 650.) The appeal is dismissed.

Lowell F. (father) appeals from an order denying his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 requesting placement of his son Lowell F. (Lowell) with him and an order denying his request for a continuance of the permanency planning hearing. Father contends the rulings were an abuse of discretion. As the section 388 petition failed to make a prima facie showing warranting a hearing, and good cause was not shown for a continuance, denial of the requests was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Court affirm the orders.

This appeal follows a guilty plea. An information charged defendant Macario Lopez Lozano with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.1, subd. (a)), and transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)). It was alleged the amount of methamphetamine possessed exceeded one kilogram (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.4, subd. (b)(1)), a principal was armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (d)), and defendant was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c)). Codefendants Noel Santa Cruz and Mario Flores Santa Cruz were also charged in the information, but they are not parties to this appeal. As Court explain, defendants guilty plea bars appellate review of the denial of his motion to disclose the informants identity.

Defendant Henry Frizzell Merriweather was charged with (1) possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1))[1](based on three prior convictions), (2) possession of an assault weapon ( 12280, subd. (b)), and (3) transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf., 11352, subd. (a)), along with the special allegations of having suffered a single prior serious or violent conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i) and 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). After waiving his constitutional trial rights, including the right to a jury trial, defendant withdrew his not guilty pleas and entered a no contest plea to the possession of a firearm by a felon. Under the terms of his plea agreement, the trial court imposed the upper term of three years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends his guilty plea was invalid and his sentence must be vacated because he was not afforded the opportunity to waive a jury trial on sentencing factors pursuant to Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), which was decided 12 days after he entered his plea. Court dismiss the appeal because defendant negotiated a plea for the upper term, waived his right to a jury trial as part of that agreement, and failed to seek and obtain a certificate of probable cause.

After defendant Roland William Dieck pled no contest to receiving stolen property and possession of marijuana, the trial court granted him probation with 365 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred when it did not award him conduct credit under Penal Code section 4019[1]for five days he served in jail prior to sentencing and (2) the probation condition that requires defendant not to be in any place where illegal substances are present should be amended to include a knowledge element. Court reject defendants first argument because section 4019, subdivision (e) precludes awards of conduct credit when a defendant has served less than six days in jail. As to defendants second argument, Court modify the probation condition to include a knowledge element.

After the trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5), Juan Rivera entered a negotiated guilty plea to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(4)). The court sentenced him to prison for the two year middle term. Rivera contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Court now affirm the judgment.

Reginald Clews entered negotiated guilty pleas to 18 counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code,[1] 288, subd. (a).) He admitted substantial sexual conduct in counts 1 through 15. ( 1203.066, subd. (a)(8).) The court sentenced him to ten years in prison; the six year middle term for count 1 with consecutive two year terms (one third the middle term) on counts 2 and 3. It imposed concurrent terms on the remaining 15 counts. Clews appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences in counts 2 and 3.

Cheryl P. and Daniel P. (together the parents) seek review of orders terminating their reunification services regarding the dependency of their son, Nicholas P., and referring the case for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. They contend the court erred by not returning Nicholas to their custody. They argue they participated regularly and made substantive progress in reunification services and there was insufficient evidence to show returning Nicholas would create a substantial risk of detriment. They also assert the court erred by not extending services for another six months. Court deny the petitions.

Petitioner County of San Bernardino (County), as the affected employer, seeks review and annulment of an order of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Board) affirming the award in favor of applicant Robert Schroeder (applicant). Court agree with Countys contentions that applicants continuous trauma claim is barred by the statute of limitations; that petitioners petition to reopen may be untimely; and that the Board improperly rated all of applicants claims together. Accordingly, Court annul the order.

In this second appeal following entry of a nolo contendere plea, appellant Charlotte Chapman challenges the denial of her motion to withdraw the plea. None of appellants arguments are persuasive. Court affirm.