CA Unpub Decisions

Following the denial of his motion to suppress illegally seized evidence, Clever Sim pleaded no contest to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to two years in state prison. On appeal, Sim contends the evidence seized during a warrantless search of his backpack was the fruit of an illegal detention and should have been suppressed. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from an order recommitting him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment after the trial court determined that he was a mentally disordered offender. (MDO; Pen. Code, 2962 et seq.) Appellant claims that the evidence does not support the finding that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others due to his mental disorder. ( 2972, subd. (c).) Court affirm.

Thomas Putney appeals an order determining his incapacity to consent to mental health treatment, and directing involuntary treatment with medication. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 5334, subd. (e).) He claims the evidence is insufficient to support the order, and that it violates his equal protection rights by permitting involuntary medication for a period in excess of six months. Court affirm.

Jesus Delgado Padilla (Padilla) appeals the judgment entered following his plea of guilty to assault with the intent to commit the felony of rape (Pen. Code, 220) and his admission he had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b) (i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Padilla to a term of nine years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal for failure to bring his personal injury action against defendants California Department of Corrections (CDC), J. L. Fletes, and R. C. Hernandez to trial within the time prescribed by law. (Code Civ. Proc., 583.310.) Court find no error and affirm.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to the manufacture of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.6, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted that he had suffered a prior felony conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code sections 11370.2, subdivision (b) and 11370, subdivisions (a) and (c). The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in state prison. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. For the reasons stated below, Court affirm.

An information filed on December 16, 2005, in case number CC500833 charged defendant with one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), count one) and one count of being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a), count two). In addition, the information alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12. Defendant raises only one issue on appeal. Specifically, defendant contends that the evidence that he was under the influence of and possessed methamphetamine should have been suppressed because he was illegally detained. By way of a supplemental opening brief, defendant contends that the exclusion of evidence is required in his probation revocation proceedings because "the egregious conduct of the officers violated due process." Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner. He waived jury trial in exchange for a maximum sentence of two years. The trial court found defendant guilty and found allegations of two prior convictions true for purposes of the Three Strikes law. It dismissed one of the true findings and sentenced defendant to two years. It then appointed a doctor to evaluate defendant and later acknowledged receipt of a letter from the doctor. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him before trial on his not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) plea and failing to hold a trial on that plea. The People concede the point, and Court agree that the concession is appropriate. Court therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a trial on the NGI plea.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant pleaded no contest to hit and run resulting in death, child endangerment, and gross vehicular manslaughter and admitted an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury. (Veh. Code, 20001, Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a), 191.5, subd. (a), 1023, subd. (e)(3), 12022.7, subd. (c).) He entered his plea with the understanding that the maximum sentence that could be imposed would be six years in state prison and that a charge of driving under the influence causing injury would be dismissed. (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced appellant to six years in prison with credit for four days. Appellant contends that he was entitled to pre-sentence credit for time spent in a residential treatment facility. Court affirm.

Petitioner (father) and real party in interest (mother) are parties to a dissolution proceeding involving the custody of their minor child. Petitioner challenges orders made by a temporary judge authorizing mother to take the child to India. Court agree with petitioner that the temporary judge acted in excess of his authority since the stipulation and order appointing the temporary judge expressly excluded custody and visitation issues. Therefore, Court issue a peremptory writ in the first instance directing respondent court to set aside the challenged orders.

Court filed an opinion in this case on March 7, 2006. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. On April 4, 2007, it vacated the judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham).
Defendant argues that his sentence was erroneous under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely) as applied in Cunningham. Having considered the case in light of Cunningham, we conclude that the sentence was proper. Any sentencing error under Cunningham or Blakely was harmless. Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Appellant Jairo A., a minor, admitted allegations that he committed the following offenses: receiving stolen property, viz., credit cards (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)), a felony, and committing battery while on school property ( 243.2, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor. Following the subsequent disposition hearing, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation, the terms of which included that he serve 365 days in the Tulare County Youth Facility and pay restitution to the owner of the stolen credit cards in the amount of $463.13, representing damage sustained to the card owners vehicle, and the value of items taken, in the burglary in which the cards were stolen.
On appeal, appellants sole contention is that the court erred ordering appellant to pay restitution. Court affirm.

Devon M. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Fam. Code, 7822) to his son D.M. Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated May 22, 2007, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order filed May 30, 2007, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief. Appellant has filed such a letter brief with this court. To evaluate its merits. Having reviewed his letter brief and the record herein, we conclude appellant raises no arguable issue regarding the courts decision. Having found no claim of trial court error in appellants letter brief as to matters within the scope of this appeal, Court conclude he has abandoned the appeal from the order terminating his parental rights and dismiss this appeal.