CA Unpub Decisions

Kathleen W. appeals an order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking return of her children, T.B. and J.B. Court reverse and remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), title 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. The order denying Mothers section 388 petition is reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order CFS to comply with the notice provisions of the ICWA.

Court decided this appeal in 2006 but our decision was vacated by the United States Supreme Court and the cause was remanded to us for reconsideration in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S., 127 S.Ct. 856. As we did before, Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Genie Beauchamp sued her stepmother, Donna Martin, alleging causes of action for breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, partnership accounting, declaratory relief, breach of joint venture, quiet title, and specific performance. After a one day bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Martin on all causes of action. Beauchamp contends that substantial evidence does not support the judgment. Court disagree and affirm.

Roderick F. appeals from the juvenile courts order continuing his wardship after finding he had committed attempted second degree robbery. Court affirm.

Defendant Lorenso Vaca Pena pleaded no contest to kidnapping (Pen. Code, 207, subd. (a)), sexual battery (id., 243.4, subd. (a)), three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 years (id., 261.5, subd. (d)), two counts of oral copulation with a child under age 16 (id., 288a, subd. (b)(2)), and possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11378). In exchange for defendants plea, it was agreed that he would receive a sentence of nine years in state prison, and numerous remaining charges were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
Court have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

Following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant Rebel Gurreri pleaded nolo contendere to possessing marijuana for sale, transporting marijuana, and maintaining a place to sell marijuana. On appeal she argues the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence. We shall conclude the search of defendants motel room was justified by exigent circumstances because the police had probable cause to believe a burglary was in process, and that defendant and her children were in danger. We shall further conclude that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the duffle bag in which officers discovered marijuana, because she directed her companion to throw the bag out the window when the officers knocked on the door. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Donovan Russell Waddams guilty of one felony count of making a criminal threat against his wife and one felony count of maliciously disabling a telephone line. On appeal, this court held that the trial court erred in calculating his sentence, remanded the case for resentencing, but affirmed the judgment.

In this judgment roll appeal, appellant Mark Correnti appeals from a three-year restraining order prohibiting him from harassing Thomas Jackson and his wife. Correnti contends the court erred in its evaluation of the evidence at the contested hearing, and he is entitled to a new trial. Because Correnti has not provided this court with a record sufficient to permit review, Court affirm the judgment (order).

Defendant Alfred Wayne Melbourne pled no contest to aggravated assault and admitted prior strike and great bodily injury allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 11 years in prison, imposed a $200 restitution fine, stayed a $200 restitution fine pending revocation of parole, and awarded defendant 393 days of presentence credit. On March 26, 2007, pursuant to the request of defense appellate counsel (People v. Clavel (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 516, 519, fn. 4), the trial court modified the custody credits to 394 actual days and 59 conduct days for a total of 453 days of presentence custody credit. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury found defendant guilty of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (b))[1](count 2); discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house, occupied building, or occupied motor vehicle ( 246) (count 3); being a felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 4); and attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying ( 136.1, subd. (a)) (count 5). The jury also found true that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of count 2 ( 12022.5, subd. (a) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) and that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of count 3 ( 667 & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)).[2] Defendant subsequently admitted that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction ( 667, subd. (c) & (e)(1) & 1170.2, subd. (c)(1)). As a result, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 27 years in state prison as follows: 12 years (double the midterm) on count 2, plus a consecutive four years for the personal gun use enhancement attached to that count; a consecutive three years four months on count 3; a consecutive one year four months on count 4; a consecutive one year four months on count 5; and a consecutive five years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement.
On appeal, defendant contends that the sentences on counts 3 and 4 should have been stayed pursuant to section 654 and that the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction as to count 5, and therefore that count should be reversed. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

In 2003, the trial court civilly committed defendant to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). At the time of commitment, the trial court suspended the execution of a five-year prison sentence. In November 2005, CRC recommended that defendant be successfully discharged. Eight months later, in defendants absence, the trial court successfully discharged defendant from CRC but reinstated her suspended five-year sentence. The trial court also ordered the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to determine her custody credits. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the trial courts reinstatement of the prison sentence at an ex parte hearing violated her due process rights; and (2) the trial court erred in delegating its duty to calculate defendants custody credits to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Court agree with defendant.

On October 16, 2006, the San Bernardino District Attorneys Office filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 charging minor in count 1 with a violation of Penal Code section 211, second degree robbery, a felony, and in count 2 with violating Penal Code section 459, second degree commercial burglary, a felony. A review of the entire record, including possible issues referred to by counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Curtis Lee Malin contends his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was abridged when the trial court refused to allow him to discharge retained counsel. Court agree and reverse the conviction.