CA Unpub Decisions

M.P. (mother) appeals the order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her infant daughter and freeing the child for adoption. Court affirm the order.

Appellant contends he was not adequately advised of the penal consequences of his admission of a prior conviction. Court affirm the judgment.

David M. is the presumed father of four dependent children, the younger three of whom the Merced County Superior Court freed for purposes of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) He challenges the orders terminating parental rights on grounds the court should have found termination would be detrimental to the children based on their sibling relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E)). He also claims the lack of earlier visitation between him and the children was prejudicial error. On review, Court affirm.

Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 8.452) from the juvenile courts orders issued at an uncontested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.21, subd. (e)) at which the court terminated her reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing as to her son J. Court deny the petition.

Carlos I. appeals from a judgment rendering him a ward of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) He contends the court failed to declare whether one of his offenses was a misdemeanor or a felony and also miscalculated his maximum period of confinement. Court find the matter must be remanded for the juvenile court to address these issues.

Cross complainant Charles Kinney, an attorney appearing in propria persona, comes before us for the third time in relation to certain real property litigation involving cross defendant Sherrie Overton and others. A judgment having been entered in favor of Overton on quiet title and other causes of action, Kinney now appeals from an order denying his motion to tax costs. We hold that the trial court did not err in denying his motion. The benefits of Code of Civil Procedure section 998 were available to Overton even though her offer to compromise and her expert witness designation were each made before Kinney filed his fifth amended cross complaint. Court affirm the order.

Appellants Michael and Jill Corrigan, Corrigan Construction, and Michael Tansy appeal from an order dismissing their cross-complaint against respondents Robert and Patricia Pendo and Paul and Mary Savage, individually and as trustees of their respective family trusts. The underlying action resulted from landslides occurring on the 11 plaintiffs' property, resulting in damage to their six homes. Appellants contend that the trial court erred as a matter of law by finding a good-faith settlement between respondents and the plaintiffs, because the intent and effect of the settlement was to cut off appellants' indemnity and contribution rights against respondents. We find no abuse of discretion or inconsistency with the purpose and language of Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. Accordingly, Court affirm the order of dismissal.

The defendant in this case, David Robles, pleaded guilty to petty theft with a prior enumerated offense that resulted in incarceration (Pen. Code, 666; see id., 484, subd. (a)) and admitted having served a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to the upper term of three years for the aggravated petty theft offense and imposed a one-year sentence for the prior prison term enhancement. It stayed execution of sentence and placed defendant on probation subject to a number of conditions, including service of 365 days in jail.
On appeal, defendant contends that some of the probation conditions the trial court imposed are invalid and that if we find his claims regarding them forfeited, counsel was ineffective for failing to raise them in the court below.
Court agree with defendant in part and disagree in part. We agree that the language of some of the probation conditions he challenges is inartfully drafted and imposes requirements on him that are constitutionally dubious or infirm. Court resolve the problem by directing the trial court to modify the language of those conditions in accordance with constitutional and state law norms. Court otherwise affirm the judgment.

Anthony Kyle Barber pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 and admitted two prior convictions for violating the same section. He entered the plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. The trial court accepted the plea and dismissed the two remaining charges, one for a violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(1), and the other for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364. The trial court imposed the upper prison term of three years. Appellant Barber appeals from the judgment of conviction. Court have reviewed the record and have determined there is no arguable issue on appeal. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Appellant was convicted by jury of the second degree murder of Janet Cook, a woman described as a prostitute, crack addict and con artist. (Pen. Code, 187-189.) The jury also found that appellant intentionally and personally discharged a handgun causing great bodily injury in the commission of Cooks murder within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). He was sentenced to a total prison term of 40 years to life. On appeal, appellant raises a single evidentiary issuethat the court erroneously excluded evidence crucial to his defense that Cooks threatening and demanding conduct in the weeks before the shooting provoked him to kill her in a heat of passion. Court disagree and affirm.

This petition for writ of mandate presents the question whether there is substantial evidence to sustain the juvenile courts order that the reunification services of petitioner John G., Sr., be ended and the matter set for a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Substantial evidence supports the courts determination, and therefore, after considering the petition on the merits pursuant to the requirements of rule 8.452(i)(1) of the California Rules of Court, Court deny it.

A jury convicted defendant Merhani Teklemariam Bahabla of 11 sex offenses against four victims. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate determinate term of 37 years, plus an indeterminate term of 75 years to life.
With regard to one victim, defendant contends: (1) that the trial court erred by finding the victim to be an unavailable witness and allowing her preliminary hearing testimony to be read to the jury; and (2) that the court erroneously admitted the tape of the victims 911 call because the call, or at least portions of it, was testimonial within the meaning of Davis v. Washington (2006) U.S. [126 S.Ct. 2266] (Davis) and Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford).
With regard to two other victims, defendant contends: (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for raping one of the two victims; and (4) the trial court violated his right to cross-examine the two victims by refusing to allow defendant to impeach them with their prior convictions for petty theft.
With regard to the fourth victim, defendant contends: (5) that his sentence for one of the two crimes committed against the victim should be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
Court disagree with all of defendants contentions and affirm.

Daniel N. appeals a March 6, 2006, dispositional order, claiming lack of probable benefit in committing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitions Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) (formerly CYA) (see Gov. Code, 12838, 12838.5; Welf. & Inst. Code, 1710). The commitment follows prior wardship and, here, a negotiated admission to one felony count of aggravated assault (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) charged in a new petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602). Court find no abuse of discretion, and Court affirm.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, 664) and attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle (Pen. Code, 664, Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). He argues on appeal that the evidence does not support the conviction for the attempted carjacking, prosecutorial misconduct was committed, and the trial court erred by limiting consideration of defense alibi evidence in an instruction to the jury. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the attempted carjacking conviction, no misconduct occurred, and the courts instructional error on consideration of the defense evidence was not prejudicial. Court therefore affirm the judgment.