CA Unpub Decisions

Mario W. appeals a dispositional order of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court, entered after he was established as a ward of that court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. He claims the court abused its discretion when it committed him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Nathan Cohn appeals a judgment following the grant of summary judgment in his action in quantum meruit against respondents Law Office of Raymond Levy and Raymond Levy for legal services he claims to have provided. Cohn claims that he referred clients to Levy, and that he and Levy had an agreement to split any attorney fees that Levy recovered in connection with the representation of those clients. We conclude that the statute of limitations on Cohns quantum meruit claim began to run upon his providing services (if any). Because Cohn filed this action more than two years after he last claims to have provided services to respondents, Court agree with the trial court that Cohns complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant, Jeremiah Markeith Green, appeals from his convictions for two counts of second degree robbery and a finding he was previously convicted of serious felony. (Pen. Code[1], 211, 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant contends: there was no substantial evidence he committed a robbery as charged in count 1; the jury should have been instructed as to grand theft from the person as to count 1; he was entitled to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances utilized to impose the upper term as to count 1; the abstract of judgment must be modified and the parole restitution fine must be reduced. The Attorney General argues that certain fines and penalties should be imposed. Court affirm with modifications.

Defendant Sophie Serrato appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Marlene Jones on Consumer Legal Remedies Act and fraud claims. Court affirm.

Andrea S. (Mother) appeals the October 18, 2006 termination order in the Santa Cruz County juvenile court of her parental rights to Seth E., who was then seven years old. Mother claims two exceptions to his adoption apply and the attorney for Seth and his half sister, then 13 year old Cassandra T., had a conflict of interest making it reversible error for the same attorney to represent both. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Miguel A. Barajas pled no contest to five charges and guilty to one in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC458183 and admitted four enhancements and no contest to the single count of failing to appear while released on bail in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC468475. In exchange for this plea, the trial court agreed to and did sentence defendant to two years in state prison consecutive to his nine year, four month, sentence in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC074263. (An appeal of the latter case is pending before this court in case No. H030602.) This appeal of case Nos. CC458183 and CC468475 ensued.
Court appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. Court notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant did not respond. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner Richard C. (father) seeks writ review of an order denying family reunification services and scheduling a hearing to select and implement an alternative permanent plan for his daughter, Skyler C. Father contends insufficient evidence shows he failed to make reasonable efforts to treat his substance abuse and violence problems, which had led to the prior removal of Skylers older brother. He further contends reunification services would be in Skylers best interests. The record shows otherwise. Court deny the petition.

A surviving spouse petitions this court for a writ of review (Lab. Code, 5950; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.494) alleging the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) failed to adopt a statutory presumption of compensability that a blood borne infectious disease caused the death of her police officer husband. Given the lack of supportive medical evidence that her husband was in fact infected with such a disease, Court must agree with the WCAB that the presumption does not apply.

Amanda R. appeals from orders terminating her paren tal rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her two sons, Tyler R. and Austin R. Appellant contends that the court should have found that termination would be detrimental to Tyler R. and Austin R. based on their parent/child relationship. On review, Court affirm.

In superior court case number SCS191672, Lanika A. Phillips was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), with personal use of a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and personal infliction of great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). In superior court case number SCD195320, Phillips was charged with murder ( 187, subd. (a)), with personal use of a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), while on felony probation ( 1203, subd. (k)), three serious felony prior convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)), and three strikes ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Court dismiss the appeal as moot.

A jury convicted Omar A. Graham of one count of burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and two counts of uttering a false check ( 470, subd. (d)). The trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Graham on three years' probation on the condition, among others, that he serve 270 days in jail.
Graham appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence he had the requisite knowledge and intent to sustain his convictions on the two-check forgery counts.

This is an appeal by Benjamin Holbrook in two criminal cases. In the first case (SCD 187211), he contends the court did not orally pronounce sentence, and the abstract of judgment and minutes reflect a sentence encompassing a strike that was previously dismissed. The People respond that the court orally pronounced a sentence that did not include the strike, but concede that the abstract of judgment and the minute order must be corrected to delete references to the strike. We agree with the People and accordingly remand the case to the sentencing court so that it may make those corrections. In the second case (SCD 195927), Holbrook contends the judgment must be reversed because the record does not show that he personally waived his right to a jury trial. The People properly concede he is correct, and Court reverse the judgment.

The trial court terminated probation and sentenced defendant Edward Dominic Zuniga to state prison for the upper term of three years after he admitted his second violation on his 2005 grant of probation for possession of a short-barreled shotgun. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the courts imposition of the upper term without a jury finding of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely) and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856; 166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham), (2) the court erred in failing to state the reasons for imposing the upper term, (3) any failure to object at sentencing to the courts failure to state such reasons was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) trial counsels failure to argue for the low or middle term constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Christopher Andrews (defendant) forced a female school bus driver at gunpoint to drive him in her unoccupied bus from Gardena to Coalinga. The bus driver managed to escape at a rest stop where the police were called. The police arrived, located defendant, and arrested him. The jury convicted defendant of, inter alia, kidnapping and carjacking.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike his prior felony conviction for carjacking. Court hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and therefore affirm the judgment.