CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and Appellant Courtney A. (Mother) is the mother of five-year-old L.H. and two-year-old S.H. Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights as to her children (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26), contending that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her request for a continuance to file a section 388 petition and that the denial of the continuance corrupted the findings and orders entered under section 366.26 and failed to comport with the requirement of due process. As explained below, Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

John M. (John) appeals from the juvenile courts orders made in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing establishing a plan of long-term foster care with respect to his daughter. Johns sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that visitation with his daughter was at the discretion of his daughters therapist. As Court explain, Court disagree and affirm the order.

In an earlier opinion (People v. Stubbs (Sept. 15, 2005, G032482) [nonpub. opn.]), we affirmed Tony Stubbss convictions on two counts of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)), but accepted the Attorney Generals concession and reversed a finding that defendant suffered a strike under the Three Strikes law for a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication for carjacking in 1996. The prosecutor elected not to retry defendant on the prior conviction allegation, and the trial court resentenced defendant on January 6, 2006. As it had at the original sentencing, the court imposed the upper nine-year term for carjacking on count one, citing several aggravating factors relating to defendant and the crime. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1) [defendant engaged in violent conduct indicating a serious danger to society]; rule 4.421(b)(2) [defendants prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness]; rule 4.421(a)(1) [crime involved threat of great bodily harm or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness].) The court added a consecutive 20 month term for count 2.
Defendant did not object in the trial court, and does not argue here, that the trial courts finding concerning his criminal history was factually inadequate. Consequently, the trial courts imposition of the upper term for count 1 did not violate Cunningham. Judgment affirmed.

Joseph Alexander Blain filed a notice of appeal with this court following the judgment of conviction ordering him to prison for a total of eight years after a guilty plea to seven counts of molesting minors. (See Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a), 288, subd. (c).) Because of the guilty plea, Blain petitioned the trial court for a certificate of probable cause, but that request was denied. Thus, this appeal is limited to issues arising after entry of the plea that do not challenge its validity or involve a search or seizure. (See Pen. Code, 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).) Court appointed counsel to represent Blain on appeal. Court have examined the record and found no other issue that merits argument. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Louis Schotl was convicted by plea of one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), one count of possession of hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)),[1] and one misdemeanor count of possession of a firearm with identification marks removed ( 12094, subd. (a)). As part of the plea agreement, the court dismissed two other counts. The court sentenced defendant to the lower term of 16 months in state prison for possession of methamphetamine for sale, imposed concurrent sentences of 16 months each for possession of hydrocodone and possession of a firearm, and sentenced defendant to 30 days in jail concurrent for possession of a firearm with identification marks removed.
On appeal, defendant contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea because his attorney had a conflict of interest when he testified at the hearing, his attorney failed to present evidence that would have assisted defendant in prevailing on the motion, and his attorney failed to investigate his mental impairment. He argues the court violated his due process rights when it failed to respond to the conflict of interest and obtain a waiver. He asserts the court erred in ordering him to pay $500 in attorney fees for services rendered by the public defender. Court conclude defense counsel had a conflict of interest that deprived defendant of counsel when defense counsel testified at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea. Court therefore reverse the order on the motion to withdraw the plea and remand for further proceedings. Court also conclude the court erred in ordering the attorney fees and reverse the attorney fee order and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

On June 28, 2005, defendant Joe Ramirez Guzman punched a roommate in her face, breaking her nose and left cheek bone. Defendant, who was on parole at the time, absconded. He was arrested on August 16, 2005. By Information dated January 24, 2006 defendant was charged with battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, 242 to 243, subd. (d)), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and several prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, 667.5, subds. (b) (i), 1170.12). He pleaded guilty to the assault charge and the trial court dismissed the battery count pursuant to the plea agreement. The court dismissed one of the prior convictions in response to defendants Romero motion, and sentenced defendant to six years in state prison. The court awarded no presentence custody credit, finding that defendants presentence custody was due to a parole violation based on mixed conduct.
Court have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was not entitled to additional presentence custody credit because his presentence custody was based on mixed conduct. (See People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178.)
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to 16 months in state prison. Court affirm the judgment.

The Brentwood Rod and Gun Club (hereafter the Club) sought approval from Contra Costa County to build an outdoor firing range on a 39-acre parcel of property located near Byron. After a lengthy review process, the County denied the Clubs request, and certified an environmental impact report (EIR) that concluded a firing range at that location would cause significant negative environmental effects. The Club challenged those decisions by filing a petition for writ of mandate. The trial court denied the petition. The Club now appeals contending (1) the administrative review process was fundamentally unfair, and (2) the county erred when it certified the EIR. Court reject these arguments and affirm.

Tatiana P., a minor, appeals from an order following her admission that she violated Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1). Her counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to the minor, result in reversal or modification of the order. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified appellant that she can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the order.

Shirley W. challenges the juvenile courts orders terminating her reunification services and setting permanency planning hearings for four of her children. Court affirm.

A jury convicted appellant William Strier of the attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder of Gerald Curry in violation of Penal Code[1]sections 664 and 187(a) and found true allegations that appellant discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) through (d), and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury under section 120227(a). Appellant was acquitted of making criminal threats against Evelyn Murphy in violation of section 422.

Appellant and defendant Christina Kimberly Ashton pled guilty to one count of transportation of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a).) The court granted probation for a period of three years, subject to certain terms and conditions. On appeal, defendant argues that two of the probation conditions are invalid and unconstitutional as applied to her. Court disagree and affirm.

This is an appeal from a trial court order awarding costs on appeal. Court reverse the order insofar as it awards costs incurred in connection with a cross appeal, and in all other respects affirm.

Appellant James Collins was convicted of one count of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, one count of premeditated attempted murder in violation of sections 664 and 187 and one count of being a felon in possession of a handgun in violation of section 12021, subdivision (a)(1). The jury found true the allegations that appellant was a minor who was at least 14 years old when he committed the murder within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (a), a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) through (e)(1), and appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury in the attempted murder within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) through (e)(1). The jury also found true the allegations that the murder and attempted murder were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of 25 years to life for the murder conviction plus a 25 year to life enhancement term for the firearm use plus a consecutive life sentence for the attempted murder conviction plus a 25 year to life enhancement term for the firearm enhancement. The court imposed sentence on the firearm possession conviction concurrently.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever trial or impanel a separate jury, and in admitting co-defendant Hamilton's extrajudicial statement and instructing the jury about that statement. Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a security fee and failing to stay the firearm possession sentence pursuant to section 654. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.