CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant pled guilty to grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, S 487, subd. (a)) in exchange for a grant of probation. He later violated his probation. The trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to the upper term of three years. Defendant's sole claim on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term. Court affirm.

Defendant, father, appeals from the juvenile court's decisions denying his petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, and terminating his parental rights to his two children at a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26. As described below, court conclude that the juvenile court did not err when it denied the petition for modification based on the best interest of the children and found that the beneficial parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights did not apply.

Father, the father of child, who presently is one year old, appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating his parental rights. The child's mother is not a party to this appeal.
Court have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of numerous crimes arising from sexual acts with young boys and sentenced to prison for an indeterminate term of 75 years to life. He appeals, claiming the trial court erred in failing to give the jury an attempt instruction for the count involving victim D.P., the prosecutor committed misconduct when she asked defendant if he thought the prosecution witnesses were lying, and the trial court erred in giving instruction on consciousness of guilt. Court affirm.

Returning home one afternoon, a couple found their home "a complete disaster" with drawers pulled open and everything "dumped on the floor" and saw Eric Shannon Frazier and someone else fleeing through a window. A jury found Frazier guilty as charged of first degree residential burglary (SS 459, 460, subd. (a)), grand theft of personal property (S 487, subd. (a)), grand theft of a firearm (S 487, subd. (d)(2)), felon in possession of a firearm (S 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and felon in possession of ammunition (S 12316, subd. (b)(1)). The court imposed an aggregate 4 year sentence (the 4 year middle term on the first degree residential burglary and the 2 year middle terms stayed on each of the other crimes).
On appeal, Frazier raises two challenges to the judgment of conviction of grand theft of personal property (insufficiency of the evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel) and one challenge to the judgment of conviction of first degree residential burglary (worktime credit error). Court affirm the judgment.

On November 22, 2004, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information in the superior court charging appellant Richard John Henderson and codefendant Shana Johnston as follows:
murder (Pen. Code, S 187, subd. (a)) of Nisar Ahmad Khan with personal discharge of a firearm resulting in death or great bodily injury (S 12022.53, subd. (d));, murder (Pen. Code, S 187, subd. (a)) of Sucha Singh with personal discharge of a firearm resulting in death or great bodily injury (S 12022.53, subd. (d));conspiracy to commit a robbery (Pen. Code,S 182, subd. (a)(1)) with four overt acts (Johnston only); and
accessory after the fact (Pen. Code, S 32) (Johnston only).As to counts I and II, the district attorney alleged as to appellant that the commission of the substantive offenses constituted a special circumstance (Pen. Code,S 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant was found guilty of displaying a falsified registration tag on his vehicle with intent to defraud in violation of Vehicle Code section 4463, subdivision (a). Although the tag was admittedly a fake, the date depicted on the tag was not current. Thus, appellant contends he could not have fooled or defrauded anyone. He appeals on the grounds that (1) there was no substantial evidence that he displayed the registration tag with intent to defraud, (2) the trial court prejudicially admitted hearsay evidence regarding the date of the vehicle's last registration, and (3) the trial court should have granted his Wheeler Batson motion. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals after judgment on his no contest plea to drug possession charges, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Court affirm.

Appellant went to work for Terminix International (respondent) in August 2002. He signed a written employment contract which mandated that any disputes between them would be subject to binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Respondent terminated appellant's employment in October 2002. Appellant filed a wrongful termination suit against respondent. The court granted respondent's motion to compel arbitration.

Appellant contends (1) the juvenile court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq.; (2) the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition failed to state a cause of action; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jurisdictional findings; and (4) the dispositional order denying reunification services and limiting visitation constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Appellant Joe R. appeals the juvenile court's denial of his request for placement of his son, Baby Boy T., in his home pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2. Alternatively, he contends the reunification services ordered provided were inadequate. Court reverse and remand.

Lisa K. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26) to her three children. She contends reversal is required because respondent Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) failed to provide sufficient notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. S 1901 et seq.). On review, Court agree and reverse.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, SS 211, 212.5, subd. (e)) and found true the allegation he personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime (Pen. Code, S 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Morales to a prison term of two years for the robbery conviction, enhanced by a term of 10 years for personal use of a firearm.
Defendant challenges his conviction on two grounds: (1) sufficient evidence does not support the firearm use enhancement; and (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on an enhancement for being armed (Pen. Code, S 12022, subd. a)(1)) as a lesser included enhancement of personal firearm use.
Court conclude the evidence supported the firearm use enhancement and under People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 411 (Majors), the trial court was not required to instruct the jury sua sponte on lesser included enhancements. The United States Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi) did not overrule Majors or undermine its validity. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, Brenda L. seeks review of the order scheduling a permanency planning hearing for her two daughters, Brianna G. (now age two), and Savannah G. (now age one). (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26.) They were the youngest of Brenda's six children none of whom she has raised. Brianna was born with spina bifida. Both children were taken into protective custody at birth and declared dependent children due to Brenda's 22 year history of drug use (and attendant lengthy criminal record and frequent incarcerations), and refusal to properly treat and manage her own prenatal health problem with gestational diabetes. During the reunification period, when not incarcerated, Brenda maintained regular visitation and completed a drug treatment program and a parenting class. But, she repeatedly missed drug tests and lacked demonstrated parenting capabilities most significant of which was a lack of interest in or understanding of Brianna's medical needs. In this proceeding, Brenda challenges the court's findings: (1) that she failed to make substantial progress in overcoming the problems that led to the children's detention; (2) that she failed to substantially comply or make progress with her service plan; and (3) that reasonable reunification services were offered. Court conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the findings and deny her petition.