CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i).) He was sentenced to prison for four years, consisting of the middle term of two years doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law. He did not request a certificate of probable cause.
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, appellants appeal following his no contest plea is limited to issues relating to search and seizure and issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to his plea. (See People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780. Further, issues cognizable on appeal are confined to matters contained in the appellate record.

Appellant, a minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court declaring him to be a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) and ordering camp placement after finding that appellant was guilty of the sale or transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)). On appeal, appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was guilty of sale or transportation of marijuana without the testimony of a chemist. Court disagree and affirm the order.

Mother, appeals from the termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 with respect to her daughter, Evelia C. Mother asserts she was denied her due process right to notice of the section 366.26 hearing and the juvenile court erred in proceeding with the hearing after learning she was incarcerated and there was no waiver of her attendance. Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) argues defects in the notice of appeal require dismissal because mother failed to sign the notice of appeal and the record does not reflect her attorney had authority to sign on her behalf, because mother did not purport to appeal from a prior ruling that notice was properly served, and because mother failed to raise the claimed error in the court below. Court agree with mother that the order terminating parental rights denied her due process and therefore reverse.

Mother appeals from the courts denial of her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking reunification services with her daughter, M. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211), during which he personally used a handgun ( 12022.53, subd. (b)) and inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)), and his admission he had previously been convicted of a serious felony ( 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Carrillo to 24 years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court sustaining a petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300 and declaring Yesenia G. a dependent child under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). Mother does not dispute the courts finding of jurisdiction but contests the courts sustaining of a count under section 300, subdivision (b), which alleged that mothers mental and emotional problems rendered her incapable of caring for Yesenia. Mother further contests the courts decision not to place Yesenia in mothers custody. Court affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Alexander Dunetz (Dunetz) appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of attempted possession of a controlled substance (Pen. Code, 664, Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted Dunetz 36 months probation. Court affirm the judgment.

Rosa F., mother of dependent children Emilia D. (born in 1998), Selena D. (born in 1999), and Emiliano D. (born in 2000) (collectively, the children),[1]petitions for extraordinary writ review of orders setting a permanency planning hearing and terminating reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.22, 366.26;[2]California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Rosa contends that the evidence does not support the juvenile courts findings that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided her with adequate reunification services and that her children would be at substantial risk if returned to her custody; she also maintains that the court erred by failing to exercise its discretion to extend reunification services. Court deny the writ.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the San Joaquin County Juvenile Court found that minor K.M. was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed the offenses of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)), robbery (Pen. Code, 211), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property, to wit, the vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)).
On appeal, the minor contends the juvenile court erred by sustaining allegations for both vehicle theft and receiving a stolen vehicle over defense objection. The People concede the error. Court accept the concession, and find an additional sentencing error requiring correction.

As part of a negotiated plea, defendant Ronald Edwin Albee pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) in case No. 001892, and to separate counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)), in case Nos. 004652 and 004108. The trial court suspended an aggregate prison term of four years and four months, and placed defendant on probation for five years, subject to various conditions.
Defendant subsequently admitted to violating probation, and the trial court imposed the original four year four month sentence and a $600 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
On appeal, defendant contends drug treatment fees imposed pursuant to the original no contest pleas should be stricken and the abstract incorrectly lists the date of conviction. Court order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the correct date of conviction and to correct the orders of probation in case Nos. 004108 and 004652.

A modification decision.

Appellant, the mother of A.M. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile courts findings and orders made at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 360, subd. (d), 395.) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support removal of the minor. Court affirm.

Barry S. appeals from the trial courts order of December 20, 2005, reappointing the Shasta County Public Guardian as conservator of his person under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 5000 et seq.; further section references are to this code.) He contends the evidence does not support the finding that he was gravely disabled or the courts imposition of special disabilities. Court dismiss the appeal as moot because, even if his claim of error is correct (a question we do not address), Court are unable to provide Barry S. with effective relief because the order from which he appeals already has expired.

In 1999, a light plane carrying four skydivers crashed, killing the pilot and three of the passengers and injuring the fourth. One year later, the survivor and successors to the estates of the deceased passengers filed suit against The Estate of Lynn Maxey Wylie [sic], Deceased for negligence. The following years saw considerable, contentious litigation, marked primarily by procedural sloppiness. Finally, in late 2005, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment by the Estate of Wiley based on plaintiffs failure to serve the insurer as required by Probate Code section 552. Plaintiffs appeal, contending any claim of defect in service, including no service, was forfeited by the Estate of Wileys many general appearances. Court disagree with that premise. Instead, Court read the service requirement of Probate Code section 552 as simply the designation of whom is to be served, necessary because an estate is not a legal entity. This service requirement is subject to the normal rules of service of process, one of which is that a general appearance is the equivalent of personal service. (Code Civ. Proc., 410.50, subd. (a).) Since the Estate of Wiley has made a general appearance, it has forfeited any objection to service as a matter of law. It was error to grant summary judgment on the basis relied upon by the trial court and court reverse.