CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals an order of the trial court denying his motion to vacate and set aside orders admitting to probate a codicil to the will of his mother. Appellant contends that the trial court’s ruling denying his motion to vacate the court’s orders admitting the codicil to probate should be reversed for the following reasons: (1) the codicil was admitted without an affidavit by a subscribing witness as required by Probate Code section 8220; (2) appellant was misled as to the date of the hearing and the status of the probate proceedings; and (3) the actions of the executor of the decedent’s estate, respondent, and his attorney, violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Court affirmed.

Petitioner is serving a life term in state prison following his conviction for the 1977 robbery-murder. This appeal arose from petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the finding by the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) at petitioner’s annual parole hearing in 2003 that he was unsuitable for parole. The superior court granted the habeas writ and ordered the Board to conduct a new hearing within 60 days. After the parties had fully briefed the appeal, court granted Cousins’s motion to continue oral argument. The parties subsequently informed this court that the Board had conducted another annual parole hearing where the Board found Cousins suitable for parole and set a release date. The Governor issued a statement reversing the Board’s decision. Cousins filed a motion requesting (1) his immediate release on parole, and (2) leave to supplement the appellate record with two documents, a copy of the transcript of the Board’s 2006 parole hearing in which a release date was set and the Governor’s 2006 statement reversing the Board’s decision. Court reversed the superior court’s judgment and remanded this matter with directions to the superior court to vacate its order for a new parole hearing as being moot.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for sale of a controlled substance, with prior serious felony. Sentenced to state prison for 10 years, defendant claims there was trial error.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury on one count of possession of a controlled substance, one count of misdemeanor assault and three counts of misdemeanor vandalism. Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support imposition of the upper-term sentence for possession of cocaine and that sentence was imposed in violation of his right to a jury trial. Court affirmed.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, admitted he had possessed marijuana for sale, was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed home on probation. Defendant contends the marijuana and related items discovered during a search of his car were the fruit of an illegal detention and should have been suppressed. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after conviction by jury of possession of methamphetamine, possession of a smoking device, a misdemeanor, and being under the influence of a controlled substance, also a misdemeanor. Defendant contends imposition of the upper term violated his federal right to a jury trial. Court rejected this assertion and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after conviction by jury of first degree robbery and first degree burglary in which he personally used a firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm and two counts of grand theft of a firearm. Defendant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in responding to a jury question and in instructing the jury on possession of recently stolen property. Court rejected these claims and affirmed the judgment.

This dependency appeal follows termination of parental rights after a court-ordered case plan, where the mother’s effort at compliance with the case plan was both too little and too late. Defendant appeals the orders terminating parental rights as to her children, and denying her petition for modification to obtain custody of her children and reinstatement of family reunification services or, alternatively, to obtain weekend overnight visits with the goal of regaining custody. Contrary to defendant’s contentions: (1) the juvenile court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the petition for modification, as there was insufficient evidence of alleged changed circumstances; and (2) substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights and the inapplicability of the statutory exception based on purported benefit to the children in maintaining the parent-child relationship and supposed regular visitation by the mother.
Court affirmed the orders under review.

Petitioner seeks writ review of the order of the dependency court terminating reunification services and setting a hearing on termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Court denied the petition.

In this petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, Father contends that the juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency planning hearing for his 16-year-old daughter and the court’s finding that the family had received adequate reunification services were not supported by substantial evidence. Father further contends that the court used an erroneous standard of proof. Court denied the petition.

A jury convicted defendant of failing to register as a sex offender. In a trial by court, the court found defendant had two prior strike convictions and had served three prior prison terms. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 28 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) resentencing is required because the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike one or both of his prior strikes, (2) his sentence violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and (3) if we conclude his second contention was forfeited, then he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant and two codefendants were charged by amended information with murder, discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle at a person not in the vehicle and discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, as well as several firearm enhancements, a criminal street gang enhancement and a special circumstance under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(21). The jury in defendant’s matter was unable to reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared.
Defendant appeals, claiming insufficiency of evidence of the gang enhancement, evidentiary and instructional errors, ineffective assistance of counsel and jury misconduct. Court reversed the findings on the criminal street gang enhancement and the firearm enhancement. In all other respects, court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant doing business as Insurance Agency, sued Missouri residents and Business Insurance Management (BIM) for indemnification in a workers’ compensation insurance dispute. The trial court dismissed the action against Samuelson and BIM for lack of personal jurisdiction. Court affirmed.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to second degree burglary. Defendant appeals requesting the court to independently review the record. Court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.