CA Unpub Decisions

Eighteen year old Shana Eriksson (Shana) was tragically killed while riding a horse on the California State University, Fresno (CSUF) campus. Shana was a CSUF student and a member of the CSUF intercollegiate equestrian team.
In this appeal Shanas parents, appellants Stan Eriksson and Karan Eriksson, challenge the trial courts conclusion that their action against CSUF is barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. According to appellants, CSUF neither adequately supervised Shana nor warned her of the dangers of riding near livestock on the CSUF campus, and thus increased the risk of harm inherent in the sport of horseback riding.
the judgment affirmed.

This is an appeal from an order in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. (All section references are to this code except as indicated.) The juvenile court terminated appellants parental rights and ordered adoption as the permanent plan for the minor. Court conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating appellants parental rights. Nonetheless, as Court explain, Court must conditionally remand the matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1900 et seq.) (ICWA).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Edward Reyna pled no contest to felony charges of false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236)[1]and dissuading a witness by force
( 136.1, subd. (c)(1).). Appellant was placed on three years probation and now appeals, claiming the probation condition that prohibits him from associating with persons using or possessing dangerous drugs is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. For the reasons that follow, Court modify the probation condition and otherwise affirm.

Appellant Sergio M. challenges his commitment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (Juvenile Justice), formerly the California Youth Authority (CYA). He says the juvenile courts findings in support of the commitment were not supported by substantial evidence, and the commitment violated his right to due process because the court was unaware of his exceptional needs and failed to consider less restrictive alternatives, and because there was no evidence of probable benefit. For the reasons that follow, Court disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

was alleged in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602)[1]that appellant Mark C., a minor, committed the following felony offenses: attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, 664), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a)). Initially, on January 3, 2007, appellant admitted the assault allegation and the court dismissed the remaining two allegations. However, immediately thereafter, appellant asked to withdraw his admission. The court granted that request and set a trial confirmation hearing for January 19, 2007.Appellant has filed a letter brief in which he argues, as best we can determine, as follows: (1) the DCRJJ incorrectly determined the earliest date on which he can be granted parole, and (2) the juvenile court may have abused its discretion in imposing a maximum term of physical confinement of three years. Court affirm.

Following denial of his motion to suppress, a jury found Noel Thomas Smith guilty of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. He argues the court erroneously denied the suppression motion and committed sentencing error. For the reasons expressed below, Court affirm as modified.

This matter has been transferred here from the Supreme Court (S149799) with directions to vacate our previous decision (People v. Lacerda (Dec. 18, 2006) H030026 [nonpub. opn.]) and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301 (Crandell). In our earlier opinion, we affirmed a judgment that resulted from a plea bargain. We held, in part, that the trial court did not violate the plea bargain by imposing a restitution-fund fine and a suspended parole-revocation fine. Crandell posed similar facts and addressed this issue. The parties have not elected to file supplemental briefs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.528(f), 8.200(b).) Court hereby vacate our previous decision.

Defendant Joel Castillo pleaded guilty to murder (count 1), shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (count 2) and shooting at an inhabited dwelling house (count 3).[1] (Pen. Code 187, 246.)[2] In addition, he admitted that during the commission of counts 1 and 2, he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately causing the death of the victim. ( 12022.53, subd. (d).) The parties submitted the question whether the murder was of the first or second degree to the court, pursuant to section 1192. Defendants submission was made with the understanding that he faced a maximum sentence of 64 years to life and a minimum sentence of 40 years to life. Court reverse and remand the case for further proceedings on defendants motion to withdraw his plea.

Defendant Kevin Jones was charged by information filed November 10, 2004, with murder (Pen. Code, 187), and assault by a life prisoner with a deadly weapon ( 4500). The information further alleged that defendant had four prior felony convictions that qualified as strikes. ( 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) On October 5, 2005, defendant waived his right to a jury trial on condition that the prosecution dismiss the section 4500 count and not seek the death penalty.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, Court have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Dwayne Michael Heard appeals from a final judgment of conviction following his waiver of the right to trial and stipulation submitting the case for decision by the court based on the preliminary hearing transcript, the police report and certain exhibits. His court appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review v. pursuant to People Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The judgment and sentence imposed are affirmed.

Plaintiff Friends of Garrity Creek (Friends) appeals from a judgment of dismissal of its first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA). The court dismissed the action after sustaining without leave to amend a demurrer filed jointly by defendants County of Contra Costa and the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County (the County) and real party in interest Brilliant Management, LLC (sometimes Brilliant) on the ground that Friends failed to name Brilliant as the real party in interest until after the applicable 30 day statute of limitations had expired. Friends contends that the trial court erred because the amendment naming Brilliant as a real party in interest related back to the original complaint which named as real parties in interest Siavash Afshar, the owner of Brilliant, as as a number of fictitious Does. Court agree and reverse.

Susanna Reyngach, in propria persona, appeals from an order imposing sanctions against her. She contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $7,500 in attorney fees to her former husband, respondent George Kulya. Court affirm.

Tabari A. appeals from an order continuing him as a ward of the juvenile court and committing him to out-of-home placement. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Tabari was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
The juvenile court orders are affirmed.

Defendant Ruben Alvarez Villafan appeals from a judgment imposing the upper term of four years upon his guilty plea to the charge of transportation of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a). A related charge was dismissed upon entry of his plea. In selecting the upper term, the trial court explained: The aggravated term is appropriate given his numerous criminal convictions. If I dont look at anything else, that makes it an aggravated term. The sole issue raised on appeal is that the sentence was imposed in violation of defendants constitutional rights under Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S.[127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham)and the prior cases on which that decision was based. The judgment is affirmed.