CA Unpub Decisions

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), G.B. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his section 388 petition seeking an order returning his three sons (then ages 6, 4 and 3) to his care. We affirm.

William B. (father) appeals from the disposition order of the juvenile court, removing his son, W.B., from his custody. Finding insufficient evidence that at the time of the disposition hearing there was a substantial danger to W.’s physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being if W. were to be placed in father’s custody, we reverse the disposition order and direct the juvenile court to enter a new order placing W. in father’s care.

A jury found defendant and appellant Corina Rose Farrow guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon and simple assault. She appealed, and her appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.

Defendant appeals from his convictions for one count of battery and three counts of lewd acts upon a child. Defendant argues that his sentence for counts 3 and 4 violates Penal Code section 654 because the acts were committed in the same course of conduct, and that the sentence for count 4 must be stayed. We affirm.

At trial, the jury found defendant Jermaine Jackson guilty of three counts of misdemeanor simple assault (Pen. Code, § 240; counts 1, 4, 5), which is a lesser included offense of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), a felony, charged in counts 1 and 4, and of assault by a public officer (§ 149), a felony, charged in count 5 of the amended information. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for one year and ordered as a condition of probation that he attend 12 classes of “anger management counseling level l,” subject to approval by the probation office. Defendant appeals from the order placing him on formal probation. (People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1087–1088.)

A jury convicted defendant Celestino German Lopez of simple assault and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, and found true the allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. On appeal, defendant attacks the conviction on numerous grounds. Primarily, he contends the great bodily injury allegation is unsupported by substantial evidence. We reject this argument because the victim’s injuries—two stab wounds which required 15 stitches to repair, as well as bruising sustained during a prolonged beating—support the jury’s finding. Defendant also asserts the trial court erred by allowing an eyewitness to the altercation to testify to hearsay statements made by his companion and then failing to adequately instruct the jury to disregard the offending statements.

Defendants Jason Lee Bangle and Craig Alton Curry (collectively, defendants) appeal from the respective judgments against them following a joint trial. The jury convicted Bangle of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2) and found true the personal firearm use allegation (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and the allegations that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The same jury convicted Curry of making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 3), and Curry admitted he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) that qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). The jury acquitted defendants of the attempted carjacking charge (§§ 215, subd. (a), 664; count 1).

Defendant George Gary Leopard was convicted of 15 counts stemming from the molestation of his five-year-old step-granddaughter. On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence that any act was committed with duress or that 11 of the 15 charged acts were committed at all. He also contends the court’s instruction on the use of propensity evidence misstated the law and lowered the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude there was sufficient evidence that defendant committed the lewd acts but insufficient evidence of duress. We therefore modify the judgment to reflect convictions of lesser-included offenses that do not require duress. We also conclude—as have the other courts considering this issue—that the version of CALJIC No. 2.50.01 used in this case impermissibly lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof. We therefore reverse the modified judgment and remand for retrial.

A jury found defendant and appellant David Paz Vasquez guilty of, among other things, the second degree murder of his 20-month-old son, Joshua. Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erroneously denied for-cause challenges to prospective jurors who ultimately served as jurors, that statements he made were admitted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), and that the jury should have been instructed on involuntary manslaughter. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Martin Reiner appeals from the trial court’s orders granting respondents’ special motions to strike his complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, California’s anti-SLAPP statute. We affirm.

K.H. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders (1) denying his request for presumed father status with respect to his girlfriend’s daughter, P.P., who is not his biological child, and (2) granting biological father X.P.’s request for presumed father status. K.H. argues he qualifies as a presumed father under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d) and X.P. does not. We affirm.

Vaughn Watson entered a plea of no contest to a charge of manufacturing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)). It was agreed he would be placed on felony probation. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Watson on formal probation for a term of three years on condition that he serve a term of 300 days in the county jail.

Appellant Joaquin Peralta-Martinez appeals from a judgment sentencing him to 16 months in the county jail after the court revoked his probation for a conviction of receiving stolen property. He contends he is entitled to additional presentence custody credits. We disagree and affirm.

The juvenile court committed minor B.R. (appellant) to the Division of Judicial Facilities (DJF) after sustaining a charge that he committed lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under age 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) On appeal, appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJF. We conclude the record does not contain substantial evidence to support a finding that a placement less restrictive than the DJF is inappropriate or ineffective. Accordingly, we shall reverse and remand for a new dispositional hearing.