CA Unpub Decisions

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Miller, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Law Office of Robert McLaughlin and Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephanie Jo Reagan, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A father appeals from a juvenile court’s family law order granting sole legal and physical custody of his three minor children to the children’s mother, and requiring that father’s visits be supervised. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 364.) Finding that the father has failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court abused its discretion, we affirm.

A jury found defendants Margarito Gonzalez and Jesus Soto (collectively defendants) guilty of home invasion robbery, first degree residential robbery, first degree residential burglary, and four counts of assault. On appeal, defendants argue: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery convictions; (2) Penal Code section 1157 requires that the convictions for first degree robbery and first degree burglary be reduced to second degree offenses; and (3) Section 654 required the trial court to stay the sentence on an assault count involving the victim who was also the subject of the robbery. We find no merit in these claims.

Defendant Josue Alejandro Romero appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of second degree robbery. He contends (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on an uncharged conspiracy theory of liability, (2) insufficient evidence supported his conviction, (3) the trial court improperly responded to the jury’s question regarding the definition of “force” in the robbery instruction, and (4) he suffered prejudice from cumulative error.

A jury convicted defendant Todd Martin Williams of possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for sale (Health & Saf., Code §§ 11378, 11351), sale of cocaine (Heath & Saf., Code § 11352, subd. (a)), misdemeanor possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)), and misdemeanor unauthorized possession of a hypodermic needle or syringe (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4140). The court sentenced defendant to three years’ probation.

Mother A.C. appeals from the order terminating dependency jurisdiction and ordering custody of her daughter, M.N., and son, N.N., to the minors’ father. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.2.) Mother claims the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice procedures of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) The Department contends the ICWA inquiry and notice provisions are inapplicable because the Department sought to place the minors in the father’s custody, not a foster parent. We shall affirm.

Defendant Stuart Gorden Douglas appeals his convictions for attempted carjacking and making criminal threats after he pulled a gun on repossession agents attempting to repossess his recreational vehicle. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his carjacking conviction. The People properly concede this claim. Defendant also claims the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury on the legal definition of “permanent residency” as related to a recreational vehicle. This issue is moot in view of our reversal of the carjacking charge.

A jury found defendant Juan Rodriguez guilty of bringing a controlled substance into a jail. On appeal, defendant contends his due process rights were violated because: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing admission of a clause in a stipulation regarding his prior uncharged conduct; (2) the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by introducing evidence beyond the scope of a stipulation; and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors resulted in prejudice. Finding no merit in these contentions, we affirm.

Defendant John Lawrence Halsema shot his friend and housemate Craig Davies in the back, killing him. Nine or ten days later, defendant called police to report the shooting, stating that it had been an accident.
A jury found defendant guilty of murder in the second degree (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189), and found true an allegation that his personal use of a firearm resulted in Davies’s death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) However, finding that the trial court committed prejudicial instructional error, this court reversed the judgment and remanded for retrial. At defendant’s second trial, a jury again found defendant guilty of second degree murder and found true the enhancement allegation that defendant personally used a firearm resulting in the death of Davies.

A.L. (mother) appeals orders of the juvenile court which terminated juvenile court dependency jurisdiction over her children, I.L. and S.L., minors under the juvenile court law, following a jurisdiction/disposition hearing. In jurisdiction exit orders, the court granted father custody of the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).) We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s counsel’s request for a continuance of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing when mother did not appear for that hearing, and 2) its decision to proceed to decide the merits in mother’s absence did not contravene her due process rights. We affirm.

Maria D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s findings and orders regarding her daughter D.G. The court removed D.G. from mother’s custody and granted custody to D.G.’s incarcerated father Andres G. (Andres), who placed D.G. with her paternal grandmother. The court ordered no family reunification services for mother and terminated jurisdiction. We affirm the findings and orders.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry Truong, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Priscilla M. (mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking return of her three children to her care or, in the alternative, unmonitored visitation. We conclude the juvenile court did not err in denying the petition, and thus we affirm.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and Stephanie M. Davis for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey F. Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
T.K. (aka Diana R.) (mother) appeals an order denying her visitation after the juvenile court declared her twin sons juvenile court dependents and transferred their legal and physical custody to their father. We find no abuse of discretion, and thus we affirm.

John Steven Danner appeals after a jury convicted him of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and found true an allegation that he personally used a firearm in committing the offense (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). The trial court sentenced him to 40 years to life in state prison. Appellant contends (1) the court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence; (2) the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter; and (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during his closing argument. We affirm.

In this appeal, pro se litigant Satish Shetty continues his pattern of pursuing unmeritorious lawsuits. He purchased real property from a homeowners’ association that had foreclosed on a lien for unpaid dues. Two weeks later, the property was auctioned pursuant to a purchase money deed of trust because the borrowers, who are not parties to this litigation, had defaulted on their loan obligation. Shetty has sued virtually everyone associated with the senior deed of trust.