CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant has appealed a postjudgment order, in which the trial court denied his motion for relief from the registration requirements of Penal Code section 290. Court affirmed the order. The trial court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity on one count of misdemeanor sexual battery and two counts of felony battery against a custodial officer. Following a referral to CONREP for a placement recommendation, the court committed defendant to confinement in a state hospital for a period of four years eight months. Over 10 years after the judgment, defendant filed a motion informing the trial court that, upon his initial release from the state hospital, he had been “informed that he was required to register” as a sex offender under section 290. Defendant's motion sought relief from that requirement. Defendant's appeal is from the order denying that motion. Order Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a trial court order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications in order to render him competent to stand trial. Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court’s order is not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, should be reversed. Court concluded the record does not contain substantial evidence that it is “substantially likely” the involuntary administration of medication to McDuffie will render him competent to stand trial. Therefore, court reversed.

Defendant appeals from the portion of his sentence that imposes a $1,600 fine under Penal Code section 1202.45. Appellant contends that the fine must be reduced to the statutory minimum amount of $200 because it “constitutes punishment in excess of that contemplated by the plea bargain.” Court disagreed and affirmed.

Minor’s father appeals the termination of his parental rights. Father argues that there was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that (1) Minor was adoptable and (2) her adoption is more beneficial for her than continued relationships with Father and an adult half brother. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals from a dispositional order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him in the custody of the probation department for placement in a court-approved facility. Appellant's counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record. There are no meritorious issues to be argued.

Appellant appeals from a jurisdictional order sustaining a robbery allegation made against him in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, and from the juvenile court’s dispositional order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him on probation. Appellant’s counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record. There are no legal issues that require further briefing. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellants appeal from the judgment denying their petition for writ of administrative mandamus, by which they sought to compel the City of Pasadena (City) to vacate the revocation of a conditional use permit. In addition to the petition, appellants’ pleading included a complaint for damages and declaratory relief, naming the individual members of the Pasadena Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), and alleging that the revocation of the conditional use permit amounted to a violation of civil rights pursuant to Title 42 United States Code section 1983. The judgment is affirmed.

Father appeals an order modifying a custody arrangement by permitting Mother to move to Los Osos from Los Angeles with their minor daughter. Court found no abuse of discretion, and affirmed.

A modification decision.

Appellant through his guardian ad litem appeals from a judgment after the court determined in a bench trial that he should take nothing in this personal injury case against respondent Palmdale School District. Appellant contends the court erred in using his negligence to bar his recovery from the district. Court reversed for further proceedings.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after conviction by jury of second degree murder in which he personally discharged a firearm causing death and assault with a firearm in which he personally used a firearm. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erroneously denied discovery and the prosecutor committed misconduct in argument. Court rejected these contentions and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after conviction by jury of second degree murder in which he personally discharged a firearm causing death and assault with a firearm in which he personally used a firearm. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erroneously denied discovery and the prosecutor committed misconduct in argument. Court rejected these contentions and affirmed the judgment.

Appellant challenges his false imprisonment by violence, criminal threats, and forcible rape convictions on the grounds that permitting the jury to consider prior uncharged sexual assaults violated due process, the trial court erred by refusing to reread the cross-examination requested by the jury, and violated due process by imposing upper, full, consecutive terms on the basis of facts found by the court, rather than the jury. Court concluded the jury’s consideration of evidence of a prior sexual assault by appellant did not violate due process. However, the court’s error in refusing to reread the cross-examination testimony, as requested by the jury, requires reversal.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of four counts of committing lewd acts on a 14 or 15-year-old child by a person more than 10 years older and two counts of oral copulation of a person under the age of 16. The trial court sentenced appellant consecutively on each of the counts to an aggregate state prison term of five years four months. Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence, (2) his convictions must be reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the matter must be remanded for resentencing because imposition of consecutive sentences violated his rights to a determination by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of facts necessary to increase a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum, as set forth in Blakely v. Washington. Court affirmed.