CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Following a jury trial, appellant was found to be a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) within the meaning of Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972. He contends that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court committed instructional error. Court affirm.

Defendant, Mario Rodriguez Cortez appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one felony count of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (e)(1)). On October 2, 2006, the trial court sentenced the defendant to two years in state prison for this offense, awarded 255 days presentence custody credit and imposed a restitution fine of $400 pursuant to a plea bargain. The judgment is affirmed.

Ranger Insurance Company appeals from a judgment after the trial court entered an order denying its motion to set aside summary judgment and vacate forfeiture of a criminal defendants bail bond. Ranger argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order forfeiture of the bail bond at a master trial calendar hearing because the trial court had not ordered the defendant to be present for that hearing. Court disagree, and therefore affirm the judgment.

On February 1, 2005, defendant Juan Morales Cervantez pleaded guilty to one felony charge of transporting cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11352), and one misdemeanor charge of driving with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit. (Veh. Code 23152, subd. (b).) The trial court placed defendant on probation for five years with a number of conditions. On November 28, 2006, defendant admitted he had violated probation by failing to comply with a number of the probation conditions and the trial court terminated probation, sentencing the defendant to four years in state prison. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from this judgment on January 4, 2007. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Court have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Oscar Maurice Pearson appeals from a judgment imposing a six-year prison sentence following his conviction by a jury of burglary and related offenses. He asserts four grounds of appeal, two of which are conceded to be correct by the Attorney General and one of which has been conclusively resolved by an intervening decision of our Supreme Court. The remaining issue is whether the trial court prejudicially erred in impaneling a second jury over defendants objection to determine the truth of four prior prison term allegations. Court conclude that it did.

By information, appellant Cesar Reyniery Rodriguez was charged with four counts of child sexual abuse (Pen. Code. 288, subd. (a)). Counts 1 and 2 alleged lewd and lascivious acts upon victim Jane Doe No. 1, a person under the age of 14 years, between January 2003 and December 2004. Counts 3 and 4 alleged lewd and lascivious acts upon victim Jane Doe No. 2, also a person under the age of 14 years, on August 10, 2005. Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty on May 5, 2006 to counts 1 and 3. As part of the plea agreement, counts 2 and 4 were dismissed and the sentence left open to the court. Court affirm.

Appellant Christie C. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter, Christie H., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant contends the court erred by failing to consider Christies wishes with respect to adoption and by failing to grant appellants section 388 petition. She also asserts insufficient evidence supported the finding that the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) beneficial relationship exception does not apply. Court affirm.

Respondent Communications Services Center, Inc. (CSC), which does business as Direct Mail Center (DMC), brought this suit for damages and injunctive relief against its former employee, appellant Paul J. Razura, and Razuras present employer, Precise Mailing, Inc. (PMI), a direct competitor of DMC, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and interference with and breach of contract. (Civ. Code, 3426 et seq.; Bus & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.) Finding no monetary damages, the trial court granted injunctive relief only.
Court determine that the finding Razura and PMI used trade secrets to compete unfairly with DMC is supported by substantial evidence and that the order granting injunctive relief was not overbroad. Accordingly, because the evidence sufficiently shows DMC is likely to prevail on the merits, Court affirm the order.

This appeal arises out of marital dissolution proceedings between Larry Wax and Elizabeth Wax. Larry appeals from the trial courts ruling on Elizabeths motion for child support. He contends the order must be reversed because the timeshare factor used to calculate guideline child support was not based on the actual respective amounts of time that each party exercised primary physical responsibility for the children. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals the sentence imposed on her pursuant to Penal Code section 1210 et seq., following three admitted probation revocations. Her court appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Appellant and defendant Oscar Medina was convicted by a jury of possessing a controlled substance. He was convicted by the court of two counts of assault with a firearm with gang enhancements. Medina was sentenced to a total term of four years on one of the assault counts, with a four-year sentence on the other assault count and a three-year sentence on the possession count, all ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, he argued: 1) the trial court failed to announce the judgment before imposing sentence and did not make the true findings as to the enhancements; 2) the enhancements should have been stricken according to the terms of the jury waiver; and 3) the sentence violates Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). Court previously affirmed the judgment and conviction with instructions to the trial court concerning custody credits; now, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, Court again affirm and remand with instructions.

Suzanne Rossi (Wife) appeals from the judgment and orders granting respondent Douglas Rossi's (Husband's) request to modify spousal support payments and denying her request for attorney's fees. Wife argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the support payments; and that the court abused its discretion by modifying Wife's support payments absent any material change of circumstances, treating Wife's support as Husband's money, and characterizing part of the spousal support as "de facto adult child support." Court affirm.

The trial court sent Raymond Bentley to prison for seven years because it found he violated his probation by failing to attend a domestic violence counseling program. Court conclude there is insufficient evidence that Bentley had the ability to pay the $32.00 weekly program fee. Court reverse the judgment and the order revoking probation and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Court deny the habeas petition as moot.