CA Unpub Decisions

As stated in our prior opinion, defendant Bernardo Baez was sentenced to prison following a no contest plea to a charge of attempted murder. As part of his sentence, the trial court ordered defendant to pay a restitution fund fine of $2,200. Defendant challenged the courts imposition of that fine on appeal, asserting that it was not part of his plea bargain. We rejected defendants challenge and affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court granted review, as the same issue was then pending before it in Crandell. After issuing its decision in Crandell, the Supreme Court transferred this case back to this court, directing us to vacate our prior decision and to reconsider the cause in light of its recent decision. (People v. Baez, S146832, order filed August 13, 2007; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528 (d).)
The judgment is affirmed.

This case returns to us following a grant of review and transfer by the California Supreme Court. The high court has directed us to vacate our prior opinion and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301 (Crandell). Having done so, Court once again affirm the judgment.

This case returns to us following a grant of review and transfer by the California Supreme Court. The high court has directed us to vacate our prior opinion and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301 (Crandell). Having done so, Court once again affirm the judgment.

In this case involving a CEQA[1] challenge and other claims arising from the Monterey County Code, plaintiffs Momi and Gaynor Chinn appeal the trial courts denial of their petition in mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The Chinns petition sought to vacate Monterey Countys (the County) adoption of a Negative Declaration (ND) and issuance of a conditional use permit to Douglas and Elaine Catey for the removal of 26 coast live oak trees from their property and the adjacent Pebble Beach Company right of way as well as design approval for the construction of the Cateys residence (the project). The Cateys property is the only undeveloped parcel in the otherwise fully developed neighborhood in Pebble Beach and it is located next to the Chinns residence. Court reject the Chinns arguments and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) The jury found true an allegation that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on his victim. (Id., 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.7, subd. (a); see also id., 667, subd. (a)(4).) The assault occurred on June 12, 2005. Defendant admitted and the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had a prior conviction for which he had served a prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced defendant to six years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecution to introduce three photographs into evidence, erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte to disregard the photographs assertedly prejudicial content, and erred in giving an instruction on flight as showing awareness of guilt; that there was prosecutorial misconduct; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm the judgment.

Petitioner Yvonne Hill (petitioner) is a beneficiary of the Dorothy L. Hill 1998 Revocable Trust (Trust). Petitioner appeals from the trial courts order denying her petition to set aside a 2006 amendment to the Trust. Court concur with the trial court that the petition was untimely, and affirm the order.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant Thomas Anthony Napolitan pleaded no contest to three misdemeanors[1]: unauthorized use of a vehicle, driving on a suspended license, and using or being under the influence of a controlled substance. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a), 14601.2, subd. (a); Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a).) That same day, defendant was placed on formal probation for two years, given credit for time served of 252 days, and was released from custody. Supervision fees were waived, due to defendants homelessness, but he was assessed a $110 restitution fund fine, a $207.55 criminal justice fee, a $100 lab analysis fee, and a $200 in attorney fees. Defendant challenges the imposition of attorney fees and the lab analysis fee. The People partially concede error. Court find merit in defendants arguments. Therefore Court modify the judgment to strike the attorney fees order and reduce the laboratory fee order and, as modified, affirm the judgment.

In March 2005, Defendant Robert Rico entered pleas of no contest to felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code 11377), misdemeanor threats of violence (Pen. Code 422) and misdemeanor violation of restraining orders (Pen. Code 166, subd. (c)(1)). Imposition of sentence was suspended for three years and he was placed on formal probation with a jail sentence and numerous terms including that he obey all laws, not use or possess alcohol or other drugs, submit to alcohol/narcotic tests, complete a domestic violence program, and stay away from and not annoy or disturb the peace of the family victims. The original charges arose out of an incident on November 17, 2004, when defendant came to the home of his estranged wife in violation of a restraining order, kicking and banging on the front door and threatening to kill her if she did not let him in. He attempted to open a bedroom window but left in his vehicle when he became aware that the victim was telephoning the police. Defendant was stopped in his car nearby and during his arrest, methamphetamine was found in a small bag in his pants pocket. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, Ruth Maribel Hernandez, waived her rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl[1]and admitted allegations in a criminal complaint that she drove a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of at least .08 percent, causing injury, and running a red light (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (b), count two), committed a felonious hit and run (Veh. Code, 20001, count three), and drove a vehicle with a suspended license (Veh. Code, 14601.2, subd. (a), count five). Count two further alleged that Hernandez had two prior driving while under the influence convictions within the prior seven years. On June 1, 2006, the court carefully advised Hernandez of the consequences of her plea, including the maximum prison term she faced. The court completely advised Hernandez of her constitutional rights. The parties stipulated to, and the court found, a factual basis for the plea. Court order the amount of direct victim restitution reduced to $18,194.02. On remand, the trial court amend the abstract of judgment reflecting this change and forward it to the appropriate authorities. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

This is an appeal from an order granting extraordinary attorney fees in the amount of $25,000 to be paid to the administrators attorney. Respondent Arminda Martinez, the decedents daughter, served as the administrator for the estate of her father, Efrain Costilla. Appellant Teresa Flores Costilla is the decedents surviving spouse, who challenged the request for extraordinary fees and sought payment of the attorney fees she incurred in bringing her challenge. She claimed that she was entitled to fees under the Common Fund Doctrine because her opposition to the request for extraordinary fees provided a monetary benefit to the estate. Flores Costilla was separated from the decedent and had filed for dissolution of the marriage at the time of Costillas death. The court granted counsels petition for extraordinary fees, with a small reduction, and denied Flores Costillas request for attorney fees. Court affirm.

Petitioner Anna M. Hester-Marler appeals from the trial courts denial of her petition for priority appointment as administrator of the Estate of Dan Adrian Marler as his putative spouse. Dan Marler died on October 2, 2005. Hester-Marler filed her petition on November 2, 2005, seeking appointment as a surviving spouse. Hester-Marler and Marler were married on March 29, 1997 (although they did not live together as man and wife until 1999).
Marlers son from an earlier marriage to Mary Ann, whom Marler married in 1949, appeared and objected to Hester-Marlers appointment as administrator. Marlers son filed objections and a competing petition for appointment of administrator, alleging that Marlers marriage to Hester-Marler was invalid because Marler was not divorced from Mary Ann at the time he married Hester-Marler. The parties agree that, although Marler filed for divorce from Mary Ann on March 5, 1997, the judgment of dissolution was not entered until October 7, 1997. The parties also agree that Hester-Marler can seek priority appointment as administrator only if she is found to be a putative spouse. The dispute here centers on whether Hester-Marler had a good-faith belief that her marriage to Marler was valid. The trial court found that she did not. Court affirm.

Appellant, Ray Ruiz, was charged in an information filed August 28, 2006, with receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a), count one),[1]two counts of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a), counts two & three), and felony vandalism ( 594, subd. (a) count four). Ruiz entered into a plea agreement wherein he would admit count one. In exchange for his plea, the remaining counts would be dismissed. Ruiz would receive consideration for probation and would receive a prison term of no more than three years. Ruiz executed a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and plea form that set forth the consequences of his plea.
Ruizs appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Ruiz was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on June 22, 2007, we invited Ruiz to submit additional briefing. To date he has not done so.
The judgment is affirmed.

Tanya K. (the mother) and James R. (James or the stepbrother) appeal from an order terminating the mothers parental rights as to Lauren. James argues his petition

under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1]asking for further visitation was improperly denied. The mother claims that Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) never made appropriate inquiries into the Indian heritage of the childs biological father and that the court erred by finding the benefit and sibling exceptions of section 366.26, subdivisions (c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(E) did not apply. Court find that none of these contentions has merit and affirm the order.

Maria F. appeals from the order made at the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing removing her daughter, Esmeralda E., from her custody and placing the child in the custody of the childs father under a plan of family maintenance. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, 361.) Maria contends there is insufficient evidence to support the dispositional order. Court find no error and affirm the order.