CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Leonel Garcia was found guilty of simple assault (Pen. Code, § 240), false imprisonment by violence (§§ 236, 237, subd.(a)) and felony witness dissuasion (§ 136.1) in connection with a domestic altercation with his sister. He now appeals, arguing the jury was given an erroneous instruction allowing a permissive inference of his consciousness of guilt that he contends was not supported by the evidence.
We affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Michael Max Valadez of attempted murder (count one; Pen. Code §§187, 664) and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (count two; Pen. Code § 246), and found true allegations that he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 12022.53, subd. (d)) and committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code § 186.22, subds. (b)(1)(C) and (b)(4)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 30 years to life (five years for the attempted murder charge, a concurrent five-year term for shooting at an inhabited building, a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement on count one, and a concurrent 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement on count two).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Amalia L. Meza, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert F. Somers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Christine Y. Friedman and Adrian Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Christine J. Smith of one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and one count of obtaining personal identifying information of another person with intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1)). The jury, however, hung on three counts of burglary (§ 460, subd. (a)) as to Smith.

Plaintiff Eduardo Ochoa appeals a judgment entered after a bench trial in which the court found against Ochoa on his personal injury claims against the County of San Diego (County) arising from a motor vehicle accident involving Ochoa and a County employee driving a County vehicle. On appeal, Ochoa challenges the trial court's factual findings regarding fault. However, because we presume the judgment is correct, and because Ochoa has not provided us with an appellate record sufficient to show the trial court erred, we affirm.

A jury found Robin Hassett guilty of one count of using tear gas, not in self-defense, in violation of Penal Code section 22810, subdivision (g). The court then declined to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), and sentenced her to probation for a term of three years. On appeal Hassett argues the prosecutor committed misconduct, the court erred in refusing to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor, and a condition in the terms of her probation that requires her to obtain approval from her probation officer as to her residence and place of employment is unconstitutionally overbroad. We agree the probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad, remand the matter with instructions to the superior court to strike the condition from the terms of Hassett's probation, and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Maurice Carter has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.
On July 20, 2015, defendant Jessie Dee Turner spent time drinking with Edward Hunting at another man’s home. When Hunting left, he took a bag and a gun that belonged to defendant. Hunting returned the next morning, July 21, 2015, and returned the bag and the gun to defendant. Defendant was upset and held a knife in his hand.
Later that same day, defendant called Hunting and asked what he was doing.

Appellants M.R. (mother) and R.F. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders, declaring minor A.R. a dependent of the court and removing him from parental custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, 395.) / They contend there was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction and removal. They also contend the juvenile court erred in denying mother reunification services. We affirm.

R.R. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s orders denying her petition to reinstate family reunification services (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388), terminating parental rights to her daughter, M.J., and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (§ 366.26.) Mother contends (1) the court abused its discretion by denying her section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing and (2) the beneficial parent-child relationship exception precludes the child’s adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

Robert Lee Carroll appeals his conviction by jury of petty theft with prior theft related convictions. (Pen. Code,
§§ 484, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that appellant had suffered four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant was sentenced to four years state prison and ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).

Dina Defterios appeals from an order awarding her $15,000 in need-based attorney fees and costs to oppose a motion to modify child custody. (Fam. Code, §§ 2030; 2032, subd. (a).) The trial court found that appellant’s request for $77,067.50 fees and $17,459.77 costs was excessive and unreasonable. There was no abuse of discretion and we affirm.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Phillip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed.

Andre F.F. Toscano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Assistant County Counsel and Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jose G. (father) appeals from the jurisdictional finding that his twin sons, Luis M. and Jose M. (minors), were at risk of sexual abuse pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (d) and (j) because he molested their six-year-old half-sister. Father also appeals from the dispositional order releasing minors to Hortencia M. (mother) and giving her sole legal and physical custody.
We find no error and affirm.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Morton Rochman, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Tonja R. Torres, 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, Shawn McGahey Webb and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On November 20, 2014, in a petition filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, it was alleged that Z.K. (minor) committed vandalism resulting in damage under $400. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).) Minor admitted the allegation. The juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court and placed him on home probation.

Gabriel Campos-Martinez appeals his conviction by jury of first degree murder (Penal Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189). He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190).
Several pieces of the victim’s dismembered body, including his hands, feet and head, were found in Griffith Park within weeks of his demise. Timely disclosure was made. About two years later, three more pieces of flesh were discovered and linked to the victim by DNA analysis. Disclosure of the evidence and the ensuing report were made 16 months later while the trial was in progress. Appellant requested that the jury be instructed regarding the prosecution’s failure to make timely disclosure. (CALCRIM No. 306.) The trial court refused. We affirm.