CA Unpub Decisions

C.A. (Mother) and I.L. (Father) appeal from the judgment terminating parental rights to their now two-year-old son, C.L. Father contends the juvenile court erred in summarily denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petition. Both parents maintain the court should have applied the “parental benefit exception” to adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We find no errors and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Jose Roberto Cisneros of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) and found true that a nonaccomplice was present during the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Defendant admitted a prior serious felony conviction for which he had served a prison term. (§§ 667, 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12.) After considering the probation officer’s report, the court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior strike and sentenced him to prison for 13 years.
Defendant appealed the judgment and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against defendant, but advised he was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given an opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, but he did not do so.

Alan D. Stephenson was found guilty of 12 counts of child molestation, one count of possessing child pornography and one count of using a child to produce pornography; he received an enhanced sentence consisting of 12 consecutive indeterminate terms of 50 years to life plus a determinate term of 60 years. On appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions on counts 1 and 6, which required proof of intercourse occurring during specific time frames; (2) Penal Code section 654 should have been applied to stay the sentence on count 9; (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Stephenson’s motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to reduce the sentence by striking a prior conviction allegation; (4) the trial court should have applied a rule allowing only one life term for each of the two victims; and (5) the sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate to the crimes.
We will affirm the judgment.

After a bench trial in which the prosecution presented evidence defendant Earl Washington, Jr., and four fellow gang members robbed a couple inside their apartment, the court found Washington guilty of two counts of home invasion robbery in concert. The court also found true the allegations the robberies were gang related and a principal had used a firearm. The court sentenced Washington to a total term of 80 years to life, comprised of two life terms with a minimum parole period of 15 years—doubled to 30 years for a prior strike conviction—plus 10-year gang and firearms enhancements for each count. The court stayed the enhancements on count 2.

Defendant Jerun Tyrone Edwards appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify his credit for time served. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) requesting we independently review the entire record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We notified defendant he could independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted this court to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal and defendant’s appointed counsel has satisfied his responsibilities under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm the order from which defendant appeals.

S.T. (mother) appeals from orders made at a selection and implementation hearing held in accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). She also argues the juvenile court erred in refusing to consider her modification petition before terminating her parental rights. We affirm.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Debra L. Losnick, Referee. Affirmed.
Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
Noe T. (father) challenges a juvenile court jurisdictional order. Father contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g) based on his inability to arrange for the care of his son, Emiliano. We find no error and affirm.

Larry Jordan appeals from the denial of his petition to recall his sentence under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), which reduced certain theft-related and drug-related felonies to misdemeanors. Appellant’s counsel on appeal filed a Wende brief (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)) requesting that we conduct an independent review of the record. We have done so and conclude that no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.
On March 25, 1996, appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) On October 22, 2015, appellant filed a petition under section 1170.18, a provision of Proposition 47 enacted in November 2014, seeking to reduce his assault conviction to a misdemeanor.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Lindsay Boyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Andre Gustave was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) in 1996. After the trial court found true allegations that he had suffered three prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), he was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life plus one year for a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
In February 2013, defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence under section 1170.126 (Proposition 36). The trial court denied the petition, and defendant appeals. We affirm the order.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On June 23, 2014, defendant and appellant Thomas Michael Ritchie pleaded nolo contendere to second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on formal probation for a period of four years with various terms and conditions.
On February 26, 2015, probation was revoked. On June 4, 2015, defendant stipulated to a violation of probation. The trial court found defendant in violation of probation. Probation was revoked and then reinstated, and defendant was ordered to engage in drug counseling.

In this dependency case involving Isabel R. (Isabel), Valerie C. (Valerie) and Ashley C. (Ashley) (collectively minors), T.R. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional findings that she failed to protect Isabel within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d), and as to Valerie and Ashley under subdivisions (b), (d) and (j). We find no error and affirm.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David B. Gelfound, Judge. Affirmed.
Jerayln Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Timothy L. O’Hair, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
It was undisputed that defendant Freddie Sanchez killed his mother with a knife in the family home. By his own account, he “butchered” his mother, stabbing her multiple times. Defendant was convicted of second degree murder.
He also was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a radio, on his father and violating a previously entered restraining order protecting his father. These convictions arose from defendant’s conduct the day before killing his mother.
After review, we affirm defendant’s convictions.

Plaintiff and appellant Gary Guseinov appeals from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of defendants and respondents attorney Eric Morris, his law firm Southern California Lawyers Group, PC (SCLG), and attorney John Habashy in this legal malpractice action. Guseinov contends there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings on the following issues: 1) the attorneys’ actions caused Guseinov’s damages; 2) the amount of damages; 3) intentional misrepresentation and concealment; and 4) the attorneys acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. We agree with the trial court that there is no evidence to support the finding that the attorneys caused Guseinov’s damages, and therefore affirm.

Defendant Edward B. was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), after he admitted a count of misdemeanor grand theft from the person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)). The juvenile court committed Edward to a rehabilitation center for six months and imposed conditions of probation. Edward raises three issues on appeal. He challenges a condition of his probation that prohibits him from associating with known gang members and gang associates, arguing that the condition is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). He also challenges a probation condition that prohibits his presence on a school campus unless he is enrolled, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks an “express knowledge requirement.” And he argues that the juvenile court erred by failing to specify his maximum term of confinement and calculate credits for time served. We will strike the gang condition, affirm the sc