CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Lloyd B. (Lloyd) appeals from an order after judgment denying his motion to set aside the default and default judgment (motion to set aside) entered against him and in favor of respondent Rong C. (Rong). Because Lloyd filed his notice of appeal more than 90 days after the filing of his motion for reconsideration, his appeal is untimely and therefore dismissed.

Appellant Miguel Angel Miranda challenges his assault with a firearm convictions on the grounds the trial court committed various sentencing errors. Court conclude remand is required for resentencing because appellants juvenile criminal threats adjudication did not qualify as a strike.

A jury found Arthur Medina Luis guilty of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).) On appeal, Luis contends the trial court erred in dismissing a juror during deliberations. Court affirm.

Jesus A. Nunez appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial in which he was convicted of numerous counts of sexual abuse involving multiple child victims. He contends that because the trial court failed to make factual findings as to the truth of the multiple victim circumstance (Pen. Code, 667.61, subd. (e)(5)) at the time the court announced its findings of guilt, the sentence enhancement of an indeterminate life term ( 667.61, subd. (b)) imposed on each of four counts should be reversed. Court conclude the trial court sufficiently rendered the necessary finding and affirm the judgment.

Mario Franco, Jr., pled no contest to one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), one count of possession of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of maintaining a place for selling or using a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11366).
On appeal, Franco contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We agree with Franco that the initial warrantless "protective sweep" of his home was unlawful. Nevertheless, Court conclude the subsequently issued search warrant is valid. After excising the tainted information, the remaining information in the warrant affidavit establishes probable cause for the search. Court affirm.

Defendant Rolando Rodriguez timely appealed from his conviction for first degree murder. The jury found the robbery special circumstance and the firearm allegation to be true. The court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive 25 year term for the firearm enhancement. Among other things, defendant contends he was prejudiced by the introduction of evidence he was a gang member and by a ruling permitting evidence he caused his brother to threaten or intimidate a witness. Court affirm.

Nancy B., the mother of Troy B., appeals from the order at disposition hearing in which the court ordered visitation between Nancy B. and her son to be monitored by a therapist in a therapeutic setting, yet made no provision for the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to pay for the monitor-therapist or an order for department- paid-for conjoint counseling for Nancy and her son. Nancy B. argues the reunification services were legally inadequate and that the visitation order violated Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.1. As Court explain, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order conjoint counseling. In addition, sufficient evidence in the record supported the courts finding that a therapist was needed to monitor the visitation and that Nancy had the means to pay for it. Court therefore affirm.

Defendant appeals his conviction of two counts of battery in violation of Penal Code section 242. He contends the dismissal of two male jurors violated his right to a representative jury, and that admission of evidence of a prior injury to the victim was improper under Evidence Code section 1109. Court affirm.

Following a no contest plea, defendant Derrick Weatherspoon was convicted of driving a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while evading a pursuing peace officer in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years probation, with conditions including completion of 60 days of work for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The court also imposed a $200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). Defendants probation was revoked after a formal violation hearing because defendant failed to timely complete his CALTRANS service, lied to the probation officer about the amount of service he had completed, and altered the CALTRANS referral form to give him additional time to complete his service. The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years in state prison, finding defendants deceitful conduct while on probation made a low term sentence inappropriate.
The restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), is reduced to $200. The parole revocation fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.45 is reduced to $200. The trial court is to insure that a corrected abstract of judgment is delivered in a timely fashion to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
the judgment is affirmed.

Appellants Brian B. and Mandy M. appeal the termination of their parental rights to Connor M. under Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in permitting Brian and Mandy to represent themselves throughout Connors dependency proceedings. Court affirm.

Appellant, the mother of minors Craig, Jenna, Erick and Brian, appeals from the disposition findings and order declaring the children dependents within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section[1]300, subdivisions (b) and (j) and removing the children from her custody. The juvenile court placed Craig and Jenna with their respective fathers and terminated jurisdiction as to them. Craigs father lived in Arizona. The court placed Erick and Brian in foster care and ordered reunification services for appellant. Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to justify the order removing the children from her custody, the finding reasonable efforts had been made to prevent removal or the order for monitored visits and that the juvenile court failed to consider the detriment to Craig and Jenna in placing them with their respective fathers. Court affirm.

On January 20, 2005, Molinelli pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Molinelli on five years' probation with terms and conditions, including $14,017.58 restitution to Hayward Lumber.
Court have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Molinelli's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

On January 20, 2005, Molinelli pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Molinelli on five years' probation with terms and conditions, including $14,017.58 restitution to Hayward Lumber.
Court have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Molinelli's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Pierre OBannon contends that he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to request and obtain a certificate of probable cause so that he could appeal the courts denial of his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest. The writ petition is denied.