CA Unpub Decisions

Kenneth Seastrom, the Conservator of the Person for Wardell D. Johnston, Jr., appeals from an order granting the Petition for Order to Sell Residence of Conservatee filed by Johnston’s Conservator of the Estate, Kim Schwarcz. Appellant contends the trial court erred, and violated his due process rights, in granting respondent’s petition and authorizing sale of Johnston’s home without an evidentiary hearing. He additionally seeks remand on the ground that proper notice was not given to Johnston. We agree with respondent’s contention that appellant lacks standing to bring this appeal and, therefore, affirm.

This is an appeal from judgment following the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (writ petition) filed by appellant Henry Kirk. The underlying administrative proceedings resulted in a decision by respondent Retirement Board of the City and County of San Francisco (board) to deny appellant’s application for retirement disability based on a heart condition that rendered him unfit to continue his service with the San Francisco Police Department. For reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment.

After preparing an environmental impact report, respondent City and County of San Francisco (city) approved a project to rezone land along the Market Street corridor near Octavia Boulevard and to redevelop 22 vacant parcels created by the removal of the elevated Central Freeway. The city amended its general plan to include a new Market and Octavia Area Plan and conformed its planning code and zoning maps. Plaintiffs Coalition for Adequate Review and Alliance for Comprehensive Planning filed a writ petitionhttp://www.fearnotlaw.com/ in the trial court challenging the city’s amended general plan and environmental review of the project. The trial court denied relief and we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Ozro Robert Lee of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code §§ 459, 460, subd. (a); count 1),[1] indecent exposure after unlawful entry (§ 314, subd. (1); count 2), and two counts of child annoyance after trespass (§ 647.6, subd. (b); counts 4 and 5).[2] The court sentenced defendant to four years in prison.
On appeal defendant contends his child annoyance convictions must be reversed for insufficient evidence and that all the convictions must be reversed for jury instructional error. We agree the court erroneously instructed the jury that the People were not required to prove defendant’s motive for any crime. The error, however, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Elizabeth C. appeals from the dispositional order removing her 17-year-old daughter Maria and three-year-old daughter Jacquelyn from her custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.[1] Elizabeth contends the order must be reversed because there was no evidence the children were at risk of harm in her care and there were less restrictive alternatives to removal. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Shirley Hill (Hill) sued Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and others for the wrongful death of her adult son, James Bean (Son). The trial court found Hill lacked standing to bring the wrongful death lawsuit because she was not financially dependent on Son. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60, subd. (b).)[1] The trial court entered summary judgment against Hill and dismissed Hill’s complaint as it pertained to SCE. Hill contends the trial court erred by entering summary judgment against her because she was financially dependent on Son, and therefore had standing to bring her lawsuit. We affirm the judgment.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We shall remand the matter for correction of the abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm.

A modification decision.

Defendant and appellant Manuel Trejo appeals from an order denying his petition for an order granting additional presentence conduct credit pursuant to Penal Code sections 2933 and 4019 and an order correcting his abstract of judgment to reflect that his robbery conviction was a serious felony and not a violent felony. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues. On January 23, 2013, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not file a responsive brief or letter. We affirm.

Appellant Jose Manuel Guzman was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211,[1] one account of assault with a firearm in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(2), one count of aggravated mayhem in violation of section 205 and one count of torture in violation of section 206. The jury found true the allegations that appellant committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C), and the allegations that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the robbery, mayhem and torture within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e)(1). The trial court sentenced appellant to life with the possibility of parole for the torture conviction, plus 25 years to life in state prison for the firearm and gang allegations. The court stayed sentence on the other counts pursuant to section 654.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the mayhem and torture convictions and the true finding on the gang enhancement. Respondent contends that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence. We order the correction and affirm the judgment of conviction in all other respects.

Richard R. was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed home on probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 602[1] upon a finding that he possessed marijuana for sale. On appeal, he contends there was insufficient evidence of the juvenile court’s finding. We affirm the judgment.

David V. became the subject of concern when it was reported that he was born with methamphetamine in his system in July 2011. Gina A. (Mother) also tested positive for methamphetamine at David’s birth. David was detained in foster care while Mother began making efforts to get sober, including residential treatment. Though she regained custody temporarily, Mother relapsed with alcohol in June 2012. Because of her relapse, her lack of insight into her addiction, and her history of treatment and relapse, on January 30, 2013, a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] was scheduled for May 22, 2013.

Richard Leroy Carlson (defendant) appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] §187, subd. (a)); use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)); and infliction of great bodily injury upon the victim who was 60 years of age or older (§§1203.075, subd. (a)(1); 1203.09, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant contends that his pretrial statements were admitted in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing the incorrect standard of provocation; and that introduction of evidence of his prior act of elder abuse violated his rights to due process. We affirm.

G.M. is the mother of B.A., a now three-year-old girl. She appeals from the juvenile court’s orders (1) denying her request under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] to modify prior determinations and (2) terminating her parental rights under section 366.26. She claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her modification request to place B.A. with her maternal grandmother S.M. and then terminating G.M.’s parental rights and finding B.A. suitable for adoption.
We find no errors and will affirm the orders.