CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Plaintiffs Nicholas J. Jauregui, Mary A. Jauregui and Nicholas Jauregui, M.D., a California corporation (collectively plaintiffs) filed this action against defendant Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS). In response, COLFS moved for an order compelling arbitration and demurred to the complaint, arguing the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement requiring binding arbitration of their disputes. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that although the parties had attempted to negotiate a settlement agreement that would have included an arbitration clause, the parties had never reached or entered into a final settlement agreement because they had been unable to agree on its material terms. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and this appeal followed. The orders are affirmed.

Rafael T. and Carolina T appeal a judgment terminating their parental rights to their son, R.T. They also appeal orders denying their petitions for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Court affirm the judgments and orders.

Ada L. appeals an order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, in which she sought placement with her of her son, Jaime L., and family maintenance services. She also appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to Jaime. She contends the court abused its discretion by denying her section 388 petition because she showed her circumstances had changed and granting the petition would promote Jaime's best interests. She also contends that reversal of the order denying her section 388 petition necessarily results in a reversal of the judgment terminating her parental rights. Court affirm.

Isis G. appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter, Katrina G., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Isis 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. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Solomon McCall pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); count 1), and possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364; count 2). It was further alleged that he served five prior prison terms. He admitted serving three and the other two were struck as concurrent. In exchange for his plea, the trial court suspended the imposition of a sentence and placed defendant on probation with drug treatment pursuant to Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, 1210.1, et seq.). Following defendants violation of probation, the trial court sentenced him to a state prison term of four years, including the middle term of two years, plus two one year prior prison term enhancements pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court struck the third prior prison term finding.
On appeal, defendant contends the record shows insufficient evidence to support the prior prison term enhancements because he did not admit that he served separate prison terms or that he failed to remain free for the five-year wash-out period. Court affirm the judgment.

Robert L. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to his daughters, D. and S. He contends the court erred because there was substantial evidence of a beneficial parent/child relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)). He also joins in briefing filed by the childrens mother who argued the court erred because there was insufficient evidence of the girls adoptability. On review, Court affirm.

Sandra C. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her daughters, D. and S. She contends the court erred in reaching its decision because there was insufficient evidence of the girls adoptability and, based on their parent/child relationship, termination would be detrimental. On review, Court affirm.

Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested six-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her daughter L. Court deny the petition.

Defendant Carrera was charged with the attempted premeditated murder and assault with a semiautomatic firearm of Andy A. (counts 1 and 6), Hugo Rodriguez (counts 2 and 7), Jose Ojeda (counts 3 and 8), and Danny H. (counts 4 and 9), and personally discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (count 5).[1] (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a); 245, subd. (b); 246.) It was alleged Carrera personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) during the commission of counts 1 through 4 and 6 through 9, and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (c)) during the commission of counts 1 through 4.
Carreras claims are meritless and we affirm the judgment. This case is remanded to the superior court solely for correction of the abstract of judgment. Due to clerical error, the abstract of judgment omits the courts sentence on count 8. The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to include the courts imposition of a three year term for assault with a firearm, plus four years for personal use of a firearm on count 8, execution of sentence to be stayed pursuant to section 654 pending completion of service on all other counts.

A jury convicted James Scott Costello of the second degree murder of Melanie Eggleston (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation he discharged a firearm in committing the murder (id., 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court found that Costello had one prior serious felony conviction (id., 1192.7, subd. (c)(1)) and sentenced Costello to an indeterminate term of 55 years to life in state prison with the possibility of parole.
Court affirm. Court conclude (1) the trial court did not err by excluding certain testimony of witness Barbara Patterson; and (2) Costellos trial counsel was not ineffective for deciding not to a call Jamie Guile to testify and for not requesting pinpoint instructions on third party culpability.

Appellant Antoinette V. Hipp (Antoinette) appeals from an order appointing a receiver to sell seven real estate properties in order to divide community property between her and her ex-husband, respondent Alfred C. Hipp (Alfred). The sale was unnecessary; the court could have allocated the properties between the parties. The parties agree the court abused its discretion by ordering the sale. Court concur.
Alfred nevertheless defends the receivers appointment. He contends the receiver was needed to protect the properties against Antoinettes mismanagement. But the court did not find Antoinette had mismanaged the properties. It appointed the receiver solely to effectuate the sale. As no reason existed for the sale, none existed for a receiver. Court reverse.

A jury found defendant Rudy De Los Santos guilty of first degree murder. The jury did not find the firearm enhancement under Penal Codesection 12022.53, subdivision (d) to be true. (Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison.
Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendants behalf. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Counsel stated defendant personally requests that the court address six issues: 1) whether there was substantial evidence defendant was the shooter; 2) whether there was substantial evidence to convict defendant under an aiding and abetting theory; 3) whether defendant was deprived of due process when court permitted in-court identification; 4) Whether it was error to grant a witness immunity; 5) whether it was error to permit a witness to invoke the right to remain silent in the presence of the jury; 6) whether the court erred in instructing the jury.
Defendant filed a hand printed supplemental brief of his own on June 8, 2007. He states in his brief: I am not sure if Im doing this right but Im trying can you please send a copy to my lawyer Im trying this is my life Im an innocent man not an angel but innocent man thank you for your time. In his brief, defendant claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer failed to request a lineup, there is a lack of substantial evidence he shot the victim and that a witness gave false testimony.

Defendant Thomas Patrick Medeiros appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after the trial court found him guilty of two felony counts of discharging a pollutant into a publicly owned treatment works (counts 1 and 2 Wat. Code, 13387, subds. (a)(4), (a)(5)), one count of misdemeanor unlawful discharge of commercial quantities of materials into a public sewer (count 4 Pen. Code, 374.2, subd. (a)), and one count of misdemeanor water pollution (count 5 Fish & G. Code, 5650, subd. (a)(6)). The trial court reduced the two felony counts to misdemeanors, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on probation for three years. Court conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and Court therefore reverse the judgment.