CA Unpub Decisions

T.G., a minor, admitted an allegation of soliciting prostitution, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 647, subd. (b)), and after the trial, the juvenile court found that she had committed robbery (Pen. Code, 211). The court adjudged her a ward, placed her with her grandmother under home supervision and stayed a commitment to the Breaking Cycles program. After T.G. filed a notice of appeal, the court found that she had successfully completed probation and terminated jurisdiction. Court affirm.

A jury convicted Oscar Jimenez of numerous offenses, including transportation of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a), count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a), count 2), participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a),[1]count 3), and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 5).[2] The jury also found true that Jimenez committed counts 1, 2 and 5 for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b). Jimenez contends the evidence was insufficient to support the true finding he committed counts 1, 2 and 5 for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and was insufficient to support his convictions of counts 1, 2 and 3. He also contends the court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence of prior acts under Evidence Code section 352.
The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded for resentencing.

Y.P. (Y.) appeals judgments terminating parental rights to her children, Kevin T. and Brandon T. She also appeals an order summarily denying her petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Court affirm the judgments and order.

Edward C., the father of D.C., appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights and an order denying his petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Court affirm the judgment and order.

.T. appeals a judgment of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter, Madison I., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] B.T. contends the court erred by denying her section 388 petition for modification seeking either return of Madison to her care with services, or alternatively, for additional services. She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating her parental rights. Madison's father, Jordan I., joins in B.T.'s arguments. Court affirm the judgment and order.

A jury convicted defendant of manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.6, subd. (a)), and made 15 true findings that the crime occurred in a structure in which a child under the age of 16 years was present. (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.7, subd. (a).) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had suffered three prior convictions for which he had served prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and one strike prior. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1)) He was sentenced to prison for 38 years and appeals, claiming he should have sustained only one true finding under Health and Safety Code section 11379.7, subdivision (a),[1]that that section is unconstitutional, that the erroneous admission of evidence at trial requires reversal of his conviction and the true findings and there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He also contends that his sentence violates Penal Code section 654 and is cruel and unusual. Because Court agree with his former contention, Court need not address the latter. Court affirm his conviction and the true findings. Court stay the terms imposed for 14 of the 15 true findings under section 11379.7, subdivision (a) pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Court direct the trial court to amend the minutes of the sentencing hearing and abstract of judgment to reflect this and to impose a new total sentence of 14 years.

Defendant and appellant Jesus Reyes appeals from the order extending his commitment to the Department of Mental Health (the department), after a trial court affirmed the finding of the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) that he continued to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his extended commitment. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant guilty of possessing marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11359.) Defendant admitted three prison priors. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced defendant to state prison for two years for the substantive crime and three years for the three prison priors. Defendants sole contention is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence recovered during a search of his apartment, because there was not substantial evidence to prove his consent to the search was given freely, voluntarily, and unequivocally.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) pursuant to a plea bargain that defendant would be granted probation under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code 1210.1),[1]but he failed to appear for sentencing. Based on the failure to appear, the court denied Proposition 36 probation and granted three years probation, ordering enrollment in the PRIDE drug treatment program. Defendant contends the failure to appear did not make him ineligible for probation under Proposition 36, and that on remand the superior court should be directed to grant probation under Proposition 36 or permit defendant to withdraw his plea. The People agree with defendants contention. The sentence is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.

Appellant Mitchell Brown General Engineering, Inc., challenges the denial of its motion for attorney fees in the amount of $6,012 against Rune Kraft and Kraft Americas Holdings, Inc. (jointly, Krafts). Appellant obtained a judgment against The Artesia Companies, Inc., for failing to pay an account receivable and subsequently filed a motion to add Krafts as judgment debtors to that judgment. The superior court determined Krafts were alter egos of the original judgment debtor and added them to the judgment. The attorney fees sought by appellant were incurred in connection with the motion to add Krafts as judgment debtors. The Judgement is affirmed.

On March 17, 1999, while in a delusional state, Frank Steven Papp (appellant) attempted to strangle a longtime friend with a rope. Appellant entered a negotiated plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), 1026.)[1]
In September of 1999, appellant was committed to Atascadero State Hospital for a maximum confinement time of four years, and he was transferred to Napa State Hospital two months later. In May of 2002, appellant was released on outpatient status ( 1604) under the Fresno-Madera County Conditional Release Program (CONREP).
After an annual review hearing held July 23, 2003, the trial court continued appellant in CONREP until July 29, 2004. Appellant did not attend the hearing but had executed a waiver form on June 18, 2003. Appellant challenges the recommitment order on several theories, claiming the court violated his due process rights and lost jurisdiction over him in 2003 and that there is insufficient evidence to support the order to recommit him. Court disagree and affirm.

Appellant Jose C. Hernandez was convicted by jury of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing bodily injury to three persons (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)), and leaving the scene of an injury accident (Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a)). The court imposed a 28 month prison term as follows: the 16-month mitigated term for driving under the influence, an additional year pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23558 for causing injury, and two concurrent 16 month mitigated terms for receiving stolen property and leaving the scene. On appeal, Hernandez contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not moving to exclude a victims in-court identification that was tainted by unduly suggestive pretrial identification practices. The People contend there is sentencing error requiring remand. Court find no merit to either contention and affirm.

Appellant Bruce Jay Gould was arrested as part of an undercover operation when he was found in joint possession of over 200 grams of methamphetamine in his truck. A search warrant was subsequently issued for a residence he shared with his girlfriend, which revealed additional quantities of methamphetamine and marijuana, packaging materials, substantial amounts of cash, and several firearms. He was convicted of transportation, possession of methamphetamine and marijuana for sale, and being an ex felon in possession of a firearm, with enhancements for prior strike and narcotics convictions, and sentenced to 16 years four months.
Court find the court abused its discretion when it denied appellants posttrial motion for a continuance, and that it should have allowed his newly retained attorney to assume representation of him to prepare and file posttrial motions.

S.D. (appellant) appeals from an order placing Haely B.[1]in the legal and physical custody of her father, Erik B. Appellant contends that proper notice was not given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and that the courts findings and orders must be reversed. She argues that, under the ICWA, the presence of an alleged and presumed father required the court to determine biological paternity. Respondent contends that appellants paternity argument was waived and, even so, ICWA compliance was not necessary because the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (the Agency) and the court never considered termination of parental rights or adoption. Respondent further argues that failure to comply was harmless. Court agree with respondent and affirm.