CA Unpub Decisions

Appellants, the father and mother of E.Z. (the minor), appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights. (Welf. and Inst. Code, SS 366.26, 395; undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellants make several claims of alleged prejudicial errors in the dependency proceedings. Finding no error, court affirm.

In November 2004, the 17 year old minor drove a friend's car although she had no driver's license. She lost control of the car when she tried to change lanes at about 40 miles per hour. The car collided with victim T.V.'s car, then spun around and collided with victim C.V.'s pickup truck.
In February 2005, a petition was filed alleging that the minor was within Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that she drove without a valid driver's license (Veh. Code, S 12500, subd. (a); count one) and unlawfully turned a vehicle (Veh. Code, S 22107; count two). The minor admitted count one, and count two was dismissed with a Harvey waiver. Her admission was held in abeyance pending successful completion of a program of supervision. The minor's counsel stipulated that she would be adjudged a ward if restitution were not paid. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor. The judgment is affirmed.

La Mesa Citizens for a Clean Environment (Citizens) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for a writ of administrative mandamus challenging issuance of a negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, S 21000 et seq.) by the City of La Mesa and its City Council (collectively City). City approved a negative declaration for its adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment and certain design guidelines for properties within a specified area, "ZOA 03-02, Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and Design Guidelines for Mixed Use," also known as the " Mixed-Use Strategic Implementation Plan" (hereafter the project). The project would, among other things, increase the allowable residential density and remove limits for retail area in residential zoned parcels, and permit residential uses on the ground floor of properties in commercial zoned parcels. In denying Citizens' petition, the superior court ruled Citizens did not have standing to raise most of the issues presented in its writ petition because it failed to raise them during the public comment period and, as to those issues that Citizens had standing to raise, there was no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project would have an adverse effect on traffic and air quality, or that it would have a cumulative impact. On appeal, Citizens contends (1) it had standing to seek judicial relief by way of its writ petition; (2) it met the requirements of exhaustion of administrative remedies; and (3) City should have prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project because there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may cause significant and cumulative environmental impacts. Although we agree Citizens did not exhaust administrative remedies as to numerous asserted environmental impacts due to the absence of sufficient objections before the close of the public comment period (S 21177, subd. (b)), court conclude that as to traffic and air quality, Citizens has demonstrated substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project creates a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment, requiring preparation of an EIR. Accordingly, court reverse.

Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, S 290, subd. (g)(2)) and admitted three prior strike convictions (SS 667, subds. (b) (i), 1170.12, 668) and serving a prior prison term (SS 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The court denied a motion to dismiss the prior strike allegations and sentenced him to prison for 25 years to life for failing to register as a sex offender after being convicted of two prior strike convictions. It struck the prior prison term enhancement. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b), former rule 30(b).)
The judgment is affirmed.

Katrina W. is the mother of five daughters (Courtney P., A.P, Angel J., Alexandria W. and A.W.), who were taken into protective custody because of a multi generational family history of sexual assault and molestation and current allegations that their cousin had been sexually molested. Katrina appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three youngest daughters (Angel, Alexandria and A.W.) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, contending that the juvenile court erred by not applying the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption (S 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) and/or the sibling bond exception to adoption (S 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E)). The two oldest children (Courtney W. and A.P.) appeal the juvenile court's denial of their section 388 petition, in which they sought to have their three younger sisters placed with them in the home of their maternal aunt, Marla F. Deborah O., a maternal aunt who had been granted de facto parent status, appeals the court's denial of her section 388 petition, in which she sought to have the three youngest children placed with her.
After the court rules on the section 388 petition, the judgments terminating parental rights reinstated.

Appellant appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Dianna contends the court erred by denying her section 388 petition for modification seeking to have Delila returned to her custody with family maintenance services. Dianna also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings that Delila was adoptable and the beneficial parent child relationship exception did not apply to preclude terminating parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, S 11377, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, S 11550, subd. (a)). He also pled no contest to resisting an officer. (Pen. Code, S 148, subd. (a).) As a result of the plea, defendant was sentenced to formal probation for a period of 48 months and committed to the custody of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office for 365 days. Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, S 11377, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code,S 11550, subd. (a)). He also pled no contest to resisting an officer. (Pen. Code, S 148, subd. (a).) As a result of the plea, defendant was sentenced to formal probation for a period of 48 months and committed to the custody of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office for 365 days. Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals the trial court's finding he willfully failed to appear for sentencing in violation of his plea agreement. He argues the trial court's finding was an abuse of discretion because the record indicates his failure to appear was not willful and was based on good cause. As a result, he contends the 25 year to life sentence imposed should be vacated. The judgment is affirmed.

On June 12, 2006, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379.6(a), possession of ephedrine for manufacturing, as alleged in count one of the information charged by the District Attorney of Riverside County. Defendant also admitted the special allegations filed pursuant to Penal Code section 12022(c) and Health and Safety Code section 11370.2(b).
Thereafter, defendant was committed to state prison for 12 years less custody credits and, in accordance with the plea bargain, the remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the people and in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.
The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a), regarding her children, M., D., and C. (the children). Mother contends that: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that M. and D. came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (e); 2) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that C. came within section 300, subdivision (j); and 3) the court erred in denying her reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b). Court deny mother's writ petition.

Appellant was convicted by jury trial of the first degree murder of Keith Gooding, with the special circumstance of robbery. (Pen. Code, SS 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A).) The jury also found that Apodaca had intentionally and personally discharged a firearm in the commission of the murder (S 12022.53, subd. (d)), had personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder (S 12022.5, subd. (a)), and had committed the murder during the commission of a robbery (SS 211, subd. (a), 212.5). Apodaca was sentenced to life without parole for the murder, plus an additional consecutive 25 years to life term for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d), enhancement, and an additional consecutive 10-year term for the section 12022.5, subdivision (a), enhancement. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Having been charged with murder involving the personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, SS 187, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)), appellant Bertoldo Gonzales Rendon stands convicted, following a court trial, of voluntary manslaughter involving the personal use of a firearm (SS 192, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). Sentenced to a total term of six years in prison, he now appeals, raising numerous claims of error that present one central question: Was his motion for a continuance, made four days before the start of trial, erroneously denied? For the reasons that follow, court affirm.

Defendant appeals his conviction for first degree murder. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish premeditation and deliberation. He also contends that the trial court erred in permitting a police detective to testify that the person who slit the throat of the murdered victim (i.e., Quevedo) had the mental state of trying to "finish her off." Finally, he complains that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay for the erection of a block fence as part of victim restitution. Court affirm.