500 matching results for "ravimor":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Petitioner D.D. (mother) is the mother of two‑year‑old N.D. (child). Child was placed in protective custody in December 2014 and declared a dependent of the court due to severe injuries sustained while in mother’s care and custody. Shortly before the disposition hearing in October 2015, child’s maternal grandmother (grandmother) admitted responsibility for at least one of child’s three bone fractures. The juvenile court entered a permanent restraining order against grandmother in December 2015. At the 18‑month review hearing in November 2016, the juvenile court accepted the recommendation of the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (the Department) to terminate reunification services (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a))[1]and set a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
Motherpetitions for extraordinary writ review.Her petition, filed in propria persona thoughshe was represented by counsel in the juvenile |
From CA Unpub Decisions
In September 2014, defendant Cesar Marcos Rios pleaded no contest to a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a)(hereafter Vehicle Code section 10851(a)), and admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).[1] The trial court sentenced defendant to two years eight months in prison.
In March 2016, the trial court denied defendant’s section 1170.18 petition to have his Vehicle Code section 10851(a) conviction resentenced to a misdemeanor. On appeal, defendant contends thatthe trial court erred by denying the petition.[2] For reasons that we will explain, we will affirm the order. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
In 2004, in case No. CC329178, defendant Gabriel David Lozano pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1), obliterating the identification of a firearm (former Pen. Code, § 12090),[1] and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison.
Also in 2004, in case No. CC439826, defendant pleaded no contest to a felony violation of former Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a)(hereafter Vehicle Code section 10851(a)), and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison, with the sentence to run concurrent with his sentence in the controlled substance case (No. CC329178). In 2015, after he had completed his sentences in both cases, defendant filed an application with the trial courtpursuant to section 1 |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Fernando Acosta pleadedguilty to a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (hereafter Vehicle Code section 10851(a)), possession of acontrolled substance (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor resisting an officer (former Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)),[1]and admitted that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In 2015, after he had completed his sentence, defendant filed an application with the trial courtpursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f), which was enacted as part of Proposition 47, to have his felony Vehicle Code and drug offenses redesignated as misdemeanors. The court granted the application as to the drug offense, but denied the application as to the Vehicle Code offense.
On appeal, defendant contends that his felony conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851(a) should have been reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, and that the trial court erred by refusing to do so. Fo |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Anthony Armstrong Frank appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c) -counts 1 and 3)[1] and one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246- count 2). The jury also found true the allegations that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the robberies (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 17 years and four months in prison. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle.The judgment is affirmed.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
An amended information charged defendant Russell Michael Hartnett with assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) – count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, §245, subd. (a)(1) – count 2) and eight counts of violating a stay away order (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (c)(1) – counts 3-10). As to count 2, the information alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (e)). A strike prior (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), a serious felony prior, and two prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (a)) were also alleged. The jury found defendant guilty of count 1 and counts 3 through 10. The trial court found the strike prior and two prison prior allegations true. The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison.
Defendant contends: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence of the |
From CA Unpub Decisions
In February2008, a jury convicted defendant Leopoldo Alejandro Cortes of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))[1] and found true an allegation that defendant personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). This court reversed the judgment in January 2011, finding that the trial court had improperly restricted the testimony of the defense psychiatric expert. (People v. Cortes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 873 (Cortes I).)
In November 2013, upon retrial, a jury found defendant not guilty of first degree murder but convicted him of second degree murder. The jury found true the deadly weapon allegation. In January 2014, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 16 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by (1) instructing the jury that the owner, occupant, or agent of a home may use reasonable force to make a trespasser leave, (2) admitting gang evidence, and (3) improperly instructing the jury on how to consider evi |
From CA Unpub Decisions
A modification decision.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
The petition alleged, in essence, that both fathers were incarcerated, and mother had abandoned the children at a motel without providing for care or support.Mother did not appear at any of the hearingsand had minimal contact with the Department. It does not appear mother visited the children during the pendency of the proceedings. Eventually, the juvenile court terminated her parental rights.We focus on the facts related to father and the children since he filed the appeal.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
B.Q. (father)[1] appeals the termination of his parental rights over his children. He contends the juvenile court’s finding that the children are adoptable is error. He further contends that he satisfied the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to terminationof parental rights. We disagree and affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
This appeal arises out of a juvenile dependency action. The subject of the action below is A.S.,[1] currently 15 years old. The appellant is J.S., A.S.’s father (father).[2]Father appeals from the dispositional order following a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361,[3] in which the juvenile court ordered father to participate in a mental health evaluation and recommended treatment. Father contends the order was an unnecessary intrusion into his privacy and was, therefore, an abuse of discretion.
We find no abuse of discretion with respect to the dispositional orders and affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
This appeal arises out of a juvenile dependency action. The subject of the action below is A.S.,[1] currently 15 years old. The appellant is J.S., A.S.’s father (father).[2]Father appeals from the dispositional order following a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361,[3] in which the juvenile court ordered father to participate in a mental health evaluation and recommended treatment. Father contends the order was an unnecessary intrusion into his privacy and was, therefore, an abuse of discretion.
We find no abuse of discretion with respect to the dispositional orders and affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Gloria Koelewyn (Gloria or the grandmother) appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition for court-ordered visitation with her minor grandchildren. The children’s mother, respondent Jennifer Koelewyn (Jennifer or the mother), opposed the request for reasons we explain below. The trial court found that the mother’s decision on this issue should prevail. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the order of the trial court.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant James Barboza Solis has filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
|