CA Unpub Decisions

Mother, Jasmine A., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter Y.B. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Mother contends that she was denied her right to due process because counsel did not receive the social workers report 10 days before the hearing. She also argues that the court abused its discretion in denying her requested continuance. In a supplemental opening brief, Mother contends that the failure to provide counsel with the report prior to the section 366.26 hearing violated California Rules of Court, rule 5.725(c). Court conclude that, although the report was not timely provided to counsel, this error was not prejudicial under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson). Court thus affirm the order.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. Appellant raises various claims of error with regard to admission of testimony from a tardily disclosed witness, refusal to bifurcate trial on gang enhancement allegations, permitting an expert witness to exceed the permissible scope of expert testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, instructional error, and erroneous discharge of a juror. Court find no error requiring reversal, and affirm the judgment.

Philip and Carolyn Sawyer appeal from a judgment entered on part of a complaint against them. Because the judgment did not dispose of the entire complaint or any part of the Sawyers cross-complaint, it is not final. Court therefore dismiss the appeal.

In 1973, a ground lease agreement (the Lease) created Marina Pacifica, a residential development in Long Beach. The parties to the Lease are Security Pacific National Bank, as trustee for the McGrath Estate (McGrath) and Marina Pacifica, a California limited partnership (the Partnership). McGrath, as owner of the property, leased the land to the Partnership to build a 570 unit condominium project. The Lease expires in 2041. The court entered judgment in the two related cases on May 10, 2006. The HOAs motion to set aside the judgment was denied on June 19, 2006. This timely appeal followed. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant was charged with murder, but convicted of voluntary manslaughter based upon imperfect self-defense. Challenging certain elements of his sentence, appellant makes the following contentions: the court used facts prohibited by California court rules to impose the upper term for manslaughter; the court abused its discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors to impose the upper term; the upper term was based upon facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, violating appellants rights under the United States Constitution; the imposition of a parole revocation fine was an ex post facto penalty which must be stricken; the trial court did not have sufficient information to determine an appropriate restitution fine; the court security fee imposed at sentencing violated Penal Code section 3 and the ex post facto clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. Court therefore strike the parole revocation fine and affirm the judgment.

S.F. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights to her daughter N.F. and establishing adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) Appellant argues that the parental relationship and sibling relationship exceptions to adoption preclude termination of her parental rights. ( 366.26, subds. (c)(1)(A) & (c)(1)(E).) Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Louis Retanan on 16 felony counts and one misdemeanor count of sexual offenses against R.S. (counts 1 to 7), B.L. (count 9), R.F. (counts 10-14), and R.G. (counts 15 to 18) as follows: aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, 269, subd. (a)(1) count 1),[1]six counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 by force or fear ( 288, subd. (b)(1) counts 2 to 7), one misdemeanor count of annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18 ( 647.6, subd. (a) count 9), and nine counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 ( 288, subd. (a) counts 10 to 18). The jury also sustained allegations that the offenses in counts 1 to 7 and 10 to 18 were committed against two or more victims within the meaning of the one strike law ( 667.61, subd. (e)(5)). The trial court sentenced defendant to separate terms of 15 years to life on each felony count as follows: consecutive terms for counts 1 through 7, 10 and 15, and concurrent terms for counts 11 through 14, and 16 through 18. The court imposed a concurrent term of one year in county jail for the misdemeanor violation. Defendants total state prison term was 135 years to life. Defendants sentence is not disproportionate to the offender or the offenses. His claim of cruel and unusual punishment is without merit. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant Christian Espinoza of the attempted murder of and assault with a firearm on Jesus Aguirre. The jury found true the allegations that defendant used and intentionally and personally discharged a firearm in the commission of attempted murder and personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code sections 12022.53, subdivision (c), 12022.5, subdivision (a) and (d) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8).[1] The jury further found defendant guilty of possession of a concealed firearm and a loaded firearm in a public place. ( 12025, subd. (b)(6), 12031, subd. (a)(2)(f).) Subsequent to the jury verdicts, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, a serious felony. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 35 years and four months. Court affirm the judgment in all other respects.

A jury convicted defendant Susan La Jean Ray-Bailey of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378 count I; further undesignated references are to this code), maintaining a place for sale or use of methamphetamine ( 11366 count III), possession of marijuana for sale ( 11359 count IV), and possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm ( 11370.1, subd. (a) count V), and found special allegations of vicarious arming true as to the counts of possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of four years in state prison and ordered her to pay specified fees and fines. Court affirm defendants convictions, but vacate the sentence on count V and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

On July 14, 2003, a jury convicted defendant Gabriel Cano of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)/664--count one)[1]and assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)--count two). As to count one, the jury found that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm. ( 12022.53, subds. (c) & (d).) As to both counts, the jury also found defendant personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b)) and inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 years to life plus seven years. The court imposed a restitution fine of $4,000 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). The court also ordered defendant to pay $1,000 to the victim under section 1202.4, subdivision (f) and $8,802.77 to the Victims of Violent Crime Program. Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The orders are affirmed.

Following a bench trial, the court convicted defendant Amber Bartholomew of assault with a deadly weapon, reduced the offense to a misdemeanor, and placed her on probation. On appeal, she contends that there is insufficient evidence of the mental state necessary for assault, and the minutes of the sentencing hearing[1]could be interpreted as imposing fines that are not applicable. Court affirm.

In these consolidated proceedings, appellant, the mother of C.R., Jr., and Ca.R. (the minors), appeals from the juvenile courts orders terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant seeks remand of the matters for compliance with recent amendments to California law concerning child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Concluding that remand is unnecessary, Court affirm. The judgments (orders terminating parental rights) are affirmed.

A modification decision.

Joshua Nathaniel Saucedo entered a negotiated guilty plea to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury with personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The court placed him on three years' probation. Saucedo appeals. Court affirm.