CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of second degree murder with special allegations of intentional use of a firearm causing great bodily injury and death. Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motions to discharge his retained counsel and for a new trial. Court agree that the court erred as to the motion to discharge counsel. Because defendant sought to replace his counsel in order to move for a new trial with new counsel but was refused, we need not reach the sufficiency of his motion for new trial. For this reason, court address the facts of the alleged crime only briefly.

Appellant appeals from conviction on charges of assault, possession of a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and shooting at an occupied vehicle. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of a prosecution witness's prior criminal conduct and refusing a request for a continuance when a defense witness failed to appear. Appellant further contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish a gang enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) and that the court improperly considered aggravating factors in determining his sentence. Court affirm.

An information charged defendant and appellant with grand theft of personal property, in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a). The information further alleged that defendant had a prior conviction in 1973 for a serious or violent felony and had served nine prior prison terms. Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.

A criminal law decision regarding negligence, assault and battery, and false imprisonment.

Defendant appeals from the order of the trial court denying its motion to vacate entry in California of a sister state judgment obtained by plaintiff in Colorado. Court affirm the order.

The mother of two girls now ages one and two, seeks writ review of an order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant contends the record does not support the trial court's findings that returning the minors to her custody would pose a substantial risk of detriment and that reasonable reunification services had been provided. Court conclude there is substantial evidence to support the findings and, accordingly, deny the petition on the merits.

Appellant appeals from his adjudication as a continued ward of the court and an order for 60 days of therapeutic detention and a referral to the Wraparound Pilot Program. Appellant's counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have conducted a review, and finding no meritorious issues, affirm the order.

Mother appeals from an order of the over son. Appellant contends that problems, errors and ineffective assistance of counsel regarding visitation over years of dependency and guardianship violated her due process rights by removing a statutory "defense" of continuing contact and child benefit that might have allowed a court to avoid terminating her parental rights. Court affirm.

Plaintiffs below, Harry J. Curlett, Rhoda E. Curlett, Edward Gomes and Alice K. Gomes, appeal on a variety of grounds from the trial courts judgment regarding their fourth cause of action, in which they sought certain declaratory relief. Defendant below, San Lorenzo Village Homes Association, opposes plaintiffs appeal, and also appeals from the trial courts denial of its motion for attorney fees, which plaintiffs oppose. Court previously ordered these appeals consolidated. Court affirm the trial courts judgment and attorney fee ruling in their entirety.

The United States Supreme Court has remanded this case to us with directions to reconsider our decision in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856]. Both parties have submitted formal briefs that discuss Cunningham. In addition, both parties have submitted letter briefs that discuss the California Supreme Courts recent decision in People v. Sandoval(2007) 41 Cal.4th 825. The parties agree that under Sandoval, this case must be remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. Court agree.

Defendant Mark McCain Lowe was convicted by a jury of 41 sex offenses against four victims: 27 violations of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) (lewd act on a child under 14),[1] three involving John Doe I, one involving John Doe II, 11 involving John Doe III, and 12 involving John Doe IV; 12 violations of section 288, subdivision (b)(1) (forcible lewd act on a child under 14) involving Doe IV[2]; one violation of section 288.5 (continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14) involving Doe II; and one violation of section 286, subdivision (c)(1) (sodomy of a child under 14) involving Doe IV. The jury further found that the section 288 offenses were committed against more than one victim. ( 667.61, subd. (e)(5).) Defendant was sentenced to 585 years to life in prison, representing consecutive terms of 15 years to life on the section 288 offenses. He received concurrent upper term sentences of 16 and 8 years for the section 288.5 (count 5) and 286 violations (count 41), respectively.
Court conclude that substantial evidence supported the competency finding, the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome evidence was properly admitted, and the sentencing errors were harmless. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

The trial court found that defendant Benjamin D. Agustin is the father of Caitlin Manuel and ordered him to make past and future payments for her support. Defendant contends that the states provision of child collection support services to Caitlins mother and the order requiring child support payments violated federal law, which bars the provision of any state or local public benefit to aliens not residing legally in the United States. Court affirm.

Defendant Adrienne Patterson was convicted by a jury of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor driving with blood alcohol of .08 or higher (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (b)); the jury acquitted her of receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)). She was sentenced to prison for two years on the vehicle theft offense, and received concurrent 120-day sentences on the misdemeanor counts. She contends that the vehicle theft conviction was not supported by substantial evidence, that the court erred by giving the CALCRIM No. 362 (consciousness of guilt: false statements) jury instruction, and that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to this instruction. As we explain below, Court find these arguments untenable, and affirm the judgment.

B. G. (appellant), the alleged father of B. G. (the minor), born in 2003, appeals a juvenile court order denying his petition to change a court order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388.) He contends he did not receive proper notice of the detention hearing and reports by Alameda County Social Services Agency (respondent) and was therefore foreclosed from participating in the proceedings, establishing his status as a presumed father and obtaining reunification services. He also contends the court erred in denying his section 388 petition without a hearing. Court affirm.