500 matching results for "nhaleem":
From CA Unpub Decisions
In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), E.G. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. She contends we must reverse the order because the court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the duty to make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of her daughter, Skyla G., under section 224.2, subdivision (e), California law implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; (ICWA)). Mother argues DCFS failed to interview her brothers (Skyla’s maternal uncles) as part of DCFS’s further inquiry under section 224.2, subdivision (e), and remand is required for DCFS to conduct this further inquiry. She also contends DCFS’s misspelling of the maternal grandmother’s name on the ICWA notices DCFS sent to the tribes was prejudicial and requires remand for DCFS to comply with the notice requirements under ICWA and California law.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
David Ariaz appeals from the superior court’s order summarily rejecting the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Secretary) under former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), that the court recall Ariaz’s 26-year sentence based on a change in the law and resentence him with respect to his convictions arising from a 2010 gang shooting and attempted vehicle burglary. On June 2, 2021 the superior court read and considered the Secretary’s recommendation but summarily rejected it without appointing counsel for Ariaz. Effective January 1, 2022 Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 719, §§ 1-7) (Assembly Bill 1540) amended the recall provision in section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), and moved it to new section 1170.03.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
N.C. (Mother) challenges the jurisdiction findings and disposition order declaring six-year-old Marcus P. a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), and removing him from Mother’s custody. Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings Mother was unable to provide Marcus with care and supervision; Mother physically abused Marcus; and Mother and Mark P. (Father) engaged in physical altercations in Marcus’s presence. Mother also argues substantial evidence does not support the removal order, and the juvenile court failed to state the reasons for removal or consider reasonable means to prevent removal. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant and appellant Gary Johnson (defendant) appeals from the July 24, 2020, summary denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Because we have already ordered the trial court to conduct further proceedings under section 1170.95, subdivision (c), with respect to a substantively identical petition for resentencing filed by defendant, we can provide no effective relief to defendant through this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted defendant Elmer Wilibaldo Escobar-Lopez of continuous sexual abuse of his minor stepdaughter, J.V. On appeal, Escobar-Lopez argues that his conviction must be reversed because (1) the information was amended to expand the time period of the alleged conduct after Escobar-Lopez waived his right to a preliminary hearing; (2) the trial court excluded evidence and limited examination regarding purported infidelity by J.V.’s mother; and (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during his rebuttal argument by arguing facts not in evidence regarding how J.V.’s mother could have sought a U visa for her participation in the case. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In 2019, in resolving three criminal cases, appellant Ransom Huntley Griffin (Appellant) pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), and admitted a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to the negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced Appellant to eight years, four months
in prison, which included one year for the prior prison term enhancement. On appeal, Appellant argued this court should strike the prior prison term enhancement due to the enactment of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which limits imposition of the section 667.5, subdivision (b), enhancement to prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses. Appellant argued the rest of his sentence under the plea agreement should remain intact. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
In 2003, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began investigating a drug trafficking operation (DTO) headed by Jose Vargas Alvarez. Defendant Alejandro Ramirez was part of the DTO, which transported and sold large quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine throughout the San Francisco Bay Area as well as southern California.
Following a trial, a jury convicted Ramirez of multiple drug related offenses, as well as offenses related to the kidnapping of a third party whom Vargas Alvarez suspected was involved in the theft of $2 million and drugs from one of the operation’s “stash” houses. The trial court sentenced Ramirez to a term of life in prison without parole, consecutive to 25 years to life, consecutive to 33 years eight months. On appeal, Ramirez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for: (1) conspiracy to commit murder (counts 4, 5); (2) the possession charges (counts 10 12, 14 16, & 28); |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Darnell Leo Green was convicted of multiple offenses arising from a 1997 robbery of several individuals in a residence by several armed gang members. He was sentenced to 45 years eight months in prison. In 2021, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the sentencing court recommending that defendant be resentenced pursuant to former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). After the issue was briefed, the trial court declined to exercise its discretion to resentence defendant.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Victor Lopez was convicted of first degree murder in 2007. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison and ordered to pay $5,187.44 in direct victim restitution and a $10,000 restitution fine. In 2021, approximately 14 years after his conviction, he filed a motion, in propria persona, “to strike or modify court ordered restitution, fees, or fines.” (Capitalization omitted.) The trial court understood the motion to challenge imposition of defendant’s direct victim restitution order and denied defendant’s motion for multiple reasons, including that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the motion. Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to construe his motion as a challenge to the restitution fine (rather than merely direct victim restitution) and failing to reach the merits of that portion of his motion. The People disagree, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant’s motion, even insofar as it challenged restitution fines.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In a felony complaint filed on April 7, 2021, defendant Dewayne Keith Parker was charged with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)), resisting an executive officer (§ 69), and possessing an instrument used for unlawfully injecting or ingesting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). The complaint further alleged that he was previously convicted of 11 felonies (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)), four of which qualified as “strike” offenses under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). At his arraignment on April 26, 2021, defendant pled not guilty and denied the special allegations. In addition, the trial court—pursuant to section 1368—expressed doubt as to his mental competence, suspended criminal proceedings, and appointed a licensed psychologist to examine him.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In a felony complaint filed on March 26, 2021, defendant Dewayne Keith Parker was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The complaint further alleged that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). At his arraignment on April 26, 2021, defendant pled not guilty and denied the special allegation. In addition, the trial court—pursuant to section 1368—expressed doubt as to his mental competence, suspended criminal proceedings, and appointed a licensed psychologist to examine him. At a May 26, 2021 competency hearing, the court reviewed the psychologist’s report, declared defendant mentally incompetent, and referred the matter to the regional Conditional Release Program for a written recommendation in accordance with section 1370. After reviewing said recommendation, the court ordered that defendant be committed to the State Department of State Hospitals and specified that “[t]he maximum term of commitment exceeds 2 years.”
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In this appeal, defendant Alfonso Vargas challenges the constitutional validity of a condition to his probation. Following a review of the record, including the allegations leading to defendant’s plea agreement, we find there was no error in the wording of the probation condition challenged here. We affirm the judgment below.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
At the start of the court trial, defense counsel admitted that his client, the County of Stanislaus (County), was 100 percent liable for the traffic accident and then, after the close of evidence, argued County was not liable because plaintiff failed to prove she complied with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.).
Stipulations are contracts and are interpreted using the rules for contract interpretation. In view of the surrounding circumstances, we conclude that, under an objectively reasonable interpretation of the parties’ stipulation to County’s liability, plaintiff was not required to prove at trial compliance with the claim presentation requirements. We therefore affirm the judgment. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
In 2014, a jury convicted appellant Dvontae Larome Pink of numerous crimes following separate shootings in 2013. His convictions included first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 8); attempted first degree murder (§§ 664/187, subd, (a); count 2); discharging a firearm from a vehicle at a person (§ 26100, subd. (c); count 1); shooting at various occupied vehicles (§ 246; counts 4, 5, 6 and 9); and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 14). The jury found true that appellant committed these crimes to benefit a criminal street gang, and numerous firearm enhancements were also found true. As stated by the trial court, appellant received an aggregated sentence of “life without the possibility of parole [LWOP], plus 25 years to life, plus 15 years to life, plus 25 years to life, plus 32 years to life, plus 27 years to life, plus 27 years to life, plus 27 years to life, plus seven years.”
|