CA Unpub Decisions

This case concerns the award of presentence custody credits under Penal Code section 2900.5. The defendant was in custody on charges when a probation hold was placed on him in this case. Court hold the trial court correctly declined to award credits to defendant for his time on the probation hold due to his waiver of presentence credits in his plea to those other charges. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from a judgment following her plea of no contest and imposition of sentence. Her counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified defendant that she can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.

Michael Edwin Suderman, Jr., appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to two counts of second degree burglary, (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (b))[1]and one count of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
On November 29, 2005, appellant entered a bank and tried to cash a fraudulent check. A teller identified the check as fraudulent and seized it. Appellant fled. Court conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Michael Jason Ware appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. The jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and found true the allegation that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime (id., 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court found true the allegations that defendant suffered two prior serious felony convictions (id., 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 1170.12) and four prior felony convictions for which defendant served prison terms (id., 667.5, subd. (b)). It sentenced defendant to 25 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant claims insufficient evidence to support a personal firearm use enhancement, error in the prosecutors use of peremptory challenges to remove three Black prospective jurors, evidentiary and instructional error, and error in imposing an upper term sentence based upon facts not found true by the jury. Court affirm.

Inese Verzemnieks (Inese) appeals from an order modifying temporary spousal support. She contends that, for a number of reasons, the trial court abused its discretion in decreasing her temporary spousal support after her husband, Jeffrey L. Cummings (Jeffrey), lost a portion of his annual income. Court disagree and affirm the order.

Defendant and appellant Jose Blue appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction for making criminal threats. Blue was sentenced to a prison term of three years. Blue contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence regarding his prior misconduct; and (3) the trial court committed instructional errors. Court affirm.

Sarkas Tonoyan (Husband) appeals from a judgment entered in a dissolution proceeding awarding respondent Marine Nazaryan (Wife) two parcels of real property. Court affirm, finding that an incomplete appellate record and a deficient opening brief result in a forfeiture of all of Husbands claims of error.

Defendant and appellant Brandon Dejuan Nix appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for first degree murder, attempted murder, and evading an officer with willful disregard. Nix was sentenced to a prison term of 144 years to life.
Nix contends the trial court erred by imposing a ten-year Penal Code section 186.22 gang enhancement. He also requests that this court review the sealed record of the trial courts Pitchess[2]examination to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to order additional disclosures. Court agree that the trial court erred by imposing a ten-year sentence rather than a 15 year parole eligibility minimum on the gang enhancement, and modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, Court affirm.

jury convicted defendant Cruz Mejia of five counts of child molestation (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)),[1]and found true the allegation under section 667.61, subdivision (b), that he committed the crimes against multiple victims. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years to life on each count. He appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in: (1) limiting cross-examination of J.T., the alleged victim of counts 1 and 2; (2) not conducting an in camera review of the records from J.T.s stay at Las Encinas Hospital; (3) not excluding newly discovered evidence that J.T. had made a prior complaint of molestation by defendant; and (4) permitting expert witness testimony on Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. Court affirm.

This case arises from acts of child abuse which resulted in the death of four-year old Malaya King. A jury convicted defendant Iona King, the victims mother, of second degree murder ( 187, subd. (a)),[1]assault on a child resulting in death ( 273ab), and child abuse ( 273a, subd. (a)).[2] The jury found that defendant personally used a deadly weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) in commission of all crimes and willfully caused her daughter to suffer ( 12022.95) while committing child abuse. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 26 years to life.
On appeal, defendant primarily contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions. In addition, she attacks two evidentiary rulings: the first permitted evidence about an incriminating statement she had made and the second allowed the jury to view enlarged autopsy photographs during a physicians testimony. Court find no merit to any of these claims and therefore affirm the judgment.

Deanna W. (Mother) and Deanna S. (Grandmother) appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating Mothers parental rights to M.W., and from the courts order finding that M. was suitably placed with a prospective adoptive family rather than with Grandmother. They contend that the court failed to independently determine the relative placement issue, and abused its discretion by denying a request for a brief continuance to permit Mother and Grandmother to present evidence and testimony on the subject. We conclude that regardless of whether the court abused its discretion in denying a continuance (an issue we do not reach), the record shows that the court did not exercise independent judgment in denying Grandmothers request for placement. Therefore, we vacate the order terminating parental rights, and remand with instructions to consider Grandmothers request following an assessment by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
The order of August 25, 2006, terminating parental rights as to M. is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to order DCFS to conduct an assessment regarding the suitability of placing M. with Grandmother, and to thereafter conduct a new section 366.26 permanency planning hearing to consider the relative placement issue.

Defendant Quang Hung Han appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. The jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211[1]) and found true a firearm use allegation ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court found true the allegations defendant suffered a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12) and served three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 24 years, consisting of six years, double the middle term, on the robbery conviction, plus 10 years for the personal use allegation pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b), with five years added pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a), plus three years, one for each of the three prior prison terms, pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of another act to show intent, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b). Court disagree and affirm the conviction.

Defendant and appellant Torey Javon Phillips was convicted of one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, 246)[1]and three counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm ( 245, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to a prison term of 30 years to life after the jury found that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subd. (d)). He appeals, contending he was denied a fair trial because a juror had to be excused for bias on the second day of trial due to alleged misconduct by a police officer witness and the prosecutor. Defendant also contends, and the People concede, that the trial court improperly imposed and stayed a section 12022.5, subdivision (a) firearm use enhancement. Because the record does not support defendants allegation of misconduct, Court order that the firearm use enhancement be stricken as to count 1, but otherwise affirm the judgment as modified.

Veronica S. appeals from an order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1]petition and from an order terminating her parental rights over her children Ashley O. (born 1994), Jacob O. (born 1996), Melissa D. (born 1999), Danielle O.[2](born 2001) and Michael T. (born 2005) ( 366.26).[3] Appellant contends the juvenile court erred (1) in failing to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act with respect to Michael; (2) in failing to comply with section 366.26, subdivision (h)(2); and (3) in denying her section 388 petition. Court affirm the order denying appellants section 388 petition, but Court reverse the order terminating her parental rights with respect to Jacob and Michael and remand with directions.