CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant of multiplecrimes, including the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder of his wife.
On this appeal, defendant primarily contends that his attempted murder conviction must be reversed because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request CALJIC No. 8.73. The instruction explains that provocation insufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter may still negate the allegation that the attempted murder was deliberate and premeditated. Court reject the contention, finding there is a reasonable basis for not requesting the instruction. Although defendant testified at trial, he claimed that he had "blacked out" when he attacked his wife. Hence, defendant failed to testify about his stateof mind when he attempted to kill her. In contrast, there was overwhelming evidence (including defendant's own testimony) that defendant excessively drank and used methamphetamine the night of the crimes. Given that record, trial counsel could reasonably conclude that it would be more effective to focus solely onthe argument that defendant's voluntary intoxication created a reasonable doubt that he entertained the specific intents required for both the crime of attempted murder and the allegation that it was a willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempt.
Secondarily,defendant raises one claim of sentencing error which the Attorney General concedes. Court direct modification of the judgmentto correct that one error, but, in all other respects, affirm the judgment.

In this juvenile dependency proceeding, petitioner appeals from an order denying a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to modify earlier orders, seeking services to facilitate his reunification with two children. Court affirm.

In this juvenile dependency proceeding, the father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights. Court affirm.

This appeal has been taken from a judgment that found defendant in violation of probation, revoked her probation, and imposed a four year state prison term. Defendant claims her counsel was incompetent for failing to object to the trial court's failure to recognize its discretion to reinstate her probation. Court find that the trial court was aware of its discretion to reinstate defendant's probation, and correctly decided to instead impose a state prison term. Court therefore conclude that defense counsel did not render ineffective representation, and affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a final judgment of conviction after revocation of probation and imposition of sentence. Her court appointed attorney has filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The order revoking appellant's probation and sentence imposed are affirmed.

Mother petitions (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26, subd. (l); all unspecified rule and section references are to those sources) for review of an order of October 25, 2006, terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 (.26) hearing for three-year old son. Mother claims due process error in the court's failure to return the child to her, and in a prior reduction of visitation. Court deny the petition.

After discovery ended and after respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, appellant changed the basis for his claim that respondents owed him damages. The trial court rejected his "unequivocally contradicting his deposition testimony." Morgenstern challenges the entry of summary judgment against him, but fails to show any error. Court affirm.

Defendant timely appeals from his conviction on one count of special circumstances murder, three counts of attempted murder and some of the trial court's sentence enhancements. Court affirm the convictions and modify Defendant's sentence.

Appellants challenge a judgment of dissolution of marriage, insofar as it resolves community property interests in the marital residence. Court affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of robbery, driving a vehicle without the owner's consent and attempting to evade a peace officer with willful disregard for the safety of persons and property. (Pen. Code, S 211; Veh. Code, SS 10851, 2800.2, subd. (a).) The trial court found Medina had two prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), but struck one of the convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and imposed an aggregate prison term of 22 years and 8 months.
Court reverse Defendant's conviction of attempting to evade a peace officer but otherwise affirm the judgment and remand for resentencing.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of five counts of forcible lewd acts with one child, two counts of lewd acts with a second child, and one count of lewd acts with a third child, with further findings that the victims were vulnerable and defendant took advantage of a position of trust in the commission of the offenses. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence going to one of the victim's credibility, denying his motion to preclude testimony based on an enhanced tape recording, and discharging a juror during deliberations. Court find prejudicial error in the discharge of the deliberating juror and on that basis reverse without discussion of defendant's other issues, which are unlikely to arise in the same context, if at all, on retrial.

Appellant appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of count 1, kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, S 209, subd. (b)(1)) and count 2, kidnapping during carjacking (S 209.5, subd. (a).) Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Appellant appeals from an order correcting a clerical error in a stipulated judgment of dissolution after his former spouse, respondent, moved to set aside the judgment as to spousal support due to claimed fraud. Court affirm.

Appellant, believes that she should not have been involuntary detained pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. That statute provides: "When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled" a designated person may "upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the Sate Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation."
Court affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Karen Cunningham and the entry of summary judgment in favor of Catholic Healthcare West.